SCA/22839/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22839 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ============================================================== 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 ? ============================================================== BHAIJIBEN WD/O JESANGBHAI GAMANBHAI RATHOD & 4 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR MTM HAKIM for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5. MS FALGUNI PATEL, AGP, for Respondent(s) : 1,2, 3 Respondent : 4 deleted. MR HORMAZ B SHETHNA for Respondent(s) : 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.2.8,5.2.9 ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 17/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.Learned advocate Shri Hakim for the petitioners submits that he is challenging the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 26.4.2005 by which the Tribunal SCA/22839/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT was pleased to grant interim injunction in favour of respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.9 herein though there was delay of seven years in filing the revision application. It is the case of the petitioner that such delay has not been condoned and the petitioner is also not heard before providing that the status quo shall continue till final disposal of the revision application. He submits that since the revision application was filed by respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.9, respondent No.4 who has not responded to the notice issued by this Court is not a necessary party and therefore he seeks and is permitted to delete him for the limited purpose of the present petition. 2.Rule. Learned AGP Ms.Falguni Patel waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Shri Shethna waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.9. At the request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today. 3.To the limited extent that the Tribunal granted status quo to enure till the final disposal of the petition without examining the question of substantial delay in filing the revision application and that too without hearing the petitioner, I find that the Tribunal has SCA/22839/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT committed a legal error. In the facts of the present case, therefore, it would be appropriate that the Tribunal should first consider the application for condonation of delay that has been filed by respondent Nos.5.1 to 5.9 and thereafter, depending on the outcome of such an application, further hear the parties for the status quo order to operate till the final disposal of the revision application. 4.For the above purpose, the impugned order dated 26.4.2005 is quashed. The Tribunal may proceed further with the hearing of the delay condonation application and prayer of respondent Nos. 5.1 to 5.9 to grant or confirm the status quo order. This may be done expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such time this exercise is completed, status quo granted by the Tribunal will continue. I have expressed no opinion whatsoever either on the question of delay or on the question of interim relief and the Tribunal will decide the same in accordance with law. 5.With the above directions, the petition is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. SCA/22839/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT Direct service is permitted. (Akil Kureshi, J.)