IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 29 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- BAWA BARKULLA DARGAH TRUST THRO' TRUSTEES Versus HASMUKHLAL NATVARLAL KADIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Civil Revision Application No. 29 of 2000 MR MB GANDHI for Petitioner No. 1 MRS TRUSHA M GANDHI for Petitioner No. 1-1/4-1/4 MR MI MERCHANT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA Date of decision: 08/07/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.B. Gandhi for the petitioners while learned Advocate for the respondent is not present. 2. This is a Revision Application filed against an order passed by Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, on 10.12.1999 in Execution Application No.12/91 for issuance of witness summons to a witness directing him to remain present in the court with certain documents. The present petitioners are original judgment creditors in said Execution Application. Present petitioners are judgment creditors who had filed HRP Suit No.2085 of 1967 against one Panchal Maganlal Chhaganlal and decree came to be passed in the said suit. That decree was sought to be executed i.e. vide Execution Application No. 12/1991, in which present petitioners - judgment creditors herein preferred an application at Exh. 145 stating that the property which was subject matter of the execution proceedings was given on lease by him to one Panchal Maganlal Chhaganlal and Panchal Maganlal Chhaganlal illegally handed over the possession of the property to one third party, perhaps, Hasmukhlal Kadia. It was further stated that Panchal Maganlal Chhaganlal be called as a witness by the Executing Court with all documents about the property in question. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Small Causes Court Judge on the ground that judgment creditors at the prima facie stage cannot be permitted to examine judgment debtor and hence the application of judgment creditors present petitioners was rejected and hence this Revision Application. 3. Vide proviso of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended, this Revision Application is clearly barred and not maintainable because any order passed in favour of the present petitioners would not have terminated or disposed of the execution proceedings. This Revision Application, therefore, is not maintainable and required to be dismissed. 4. In view of the above, this Revision Application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Interim relief granted, if any, earlier shall stand vacated. (J.R. Vora, J.) p.n.nair