IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1845 of 2004 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.597 of 2005 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.1845 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- MANAGER GUJARAT TELEPHONE CABLES LTD. Versus KANAJI PRAHLADJI THAKOR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 1845 of 2004 MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY for Petitioner No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date of decision: 07/02/2005 ORAL JUDGEMENT The learned advocates have produced a write up settling the matter. The write up is signed by one Shri Gajendrasinh Shekhawat, Personnel Manager of the petitioner company and the learned advocate for the petitioner company. Kailashben Thakore, wife of deceased Kanaji Thakore has affixed thumb impression and learned advocate Mr.Mahendra Patel representing the respondent has also signed the write up. One Shri Dadiji Mathurji Thakore has also singed the write up as a witness. A xerox copy of the receipt depicting that an amount of Rs.41,000/-, is paid to Kailashben Thakore, wife of deceased Kanaji Thakore on 25.01.2005, countersigned by the witness Dadiji Mathurji Thakore is also produced on record. 2. In view of the said write up the dispute between the parties is duly settled. Hence the present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid settlement. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated. No order as to costs. 3. As the Special Civil Application is disposed of the Civil Application does not survive. The Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) karim