SCA/18277/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18277 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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? ========================================================= ADHUNIK YARNS LTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus GUJARAT ELECTRIC BOARD & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RUTVIJ M BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR SN SINHA for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 11/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.S.N.Sinha, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent. With consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up SCA/18277/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – original plaintiff has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and/or order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh.199 in Special Civil Suit No.198 of 1994 by which the application submitted by the petitioner to produce authorization letter issued by the Company authorizing the petitioner to file the suit and to give evidence in the Suit is rejected. 3. Considering the the fact that even in the cross-examination of the plaintiff it is specifically mentioned by the plaintiff and the person who has deposed and/or who has filed the suit that the Company has given him authority to file the suit and to give evidence and same is produced. However, it appears that through over-sight and/or by mistake authorization letter was not placed on record. It appears that it is not the case that there was no authorization letter at all. It appears that by mistake and/or thorough over-sight said authorization letter was not placed on record. Under the circumstances when subsequently impugned application was submitted to place on record authorization letter issued by the Company authorizing the person who has filed the suit and who has deposed on behalf of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the same. SCA/18277/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. Under the circumstances, impugned order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh.199 in Special Civil Suit No.198 of 1994 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner – original plaintiff is permitted to produce authorization letter authorizing the person who has filed the suit and who has deposed on behalf of the plaintiff on record and is to be exhibited. Considering the fact that suit is of 1994, the learned Principal District Judge, Valsad is directed to see that aforesaid Civil Suit No.198 of 1994 is decided and disposed of by the learned trial Court at the earliest but not later than 31st December, 2009. All concerned are directed to cooperate the learned trial Court in early disposal of the suit. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish