SCA/8925/1992 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8925 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = RV VORA - Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondents ========================================= = Appearance : MR HJ NANAVATI for Petitioner : 1, MS VARSHA J BRAHMBHATT AGP for Respondent : 1, MR KM PATEL for Respondent : 2, None for Respondent: 3, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 25/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. SCA/8925/1992 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 23.9.1992 ordering the recovery of Rs.31,684=65ps from the petitioner for making good the damage sustained by the Corporation on account of petitioner's negligence. 3. The entire petition is based upon the only ground that when the Corporation i.e. Civil Supply Corporation being a Company, has filed Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) for recovering the amount of Rs.31,684=65ps and when the said is awaiting its adjudication, it was not open to the concerned authority to order recovery as it is ordered vide order dated 23.9.1992. 4. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the original suit No. 22 of 1992, which is renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 844 of 1993 was decreed in favour of the Corporation and now, the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.31,684=65ps with 9% interest to the Corporation. The Civil Court has decreed the suit on 30.6.2007. 5. Shri Nanavati, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against said judgment and order of the Civil Court being Regular Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2007, which is pending. Shri Nanavati has submitted that the petitioner has already deposited the amount in the Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this petition deserves to be SCA/8925/1992 3/3 JUDGMENT disposed of as the ground on which the petition was filed does not survive. The Competent Court has decreed the suit in favour of the Corporation and judgment whereof is under challenge before the Appellate Court. In view of this, present petition is required to be disposed of as having been infructuous. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. Shri Nanavati, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the disposal of this petition may not adversely affect the petitioner's chance in Appeal. Shri Nanavati's apprehension is misconceived as the proceedings of Appeal is entirely different then petition and naturally, the disposal of the petition in not any way affect the adjudication of the Appeal. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav