IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 449 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ======================================================== 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? @ SURAJMAL SANKALCHAND Versus M RAVJI & COMPANY ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AMAR N BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 NANAVATY ADVOCATES for Respondent No. 1-2 RULE UNSERVED for Respondent No. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 04/09/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard Mr. Amar N. Bhatt, ld. advocate appearing for the applicant-revisionist and Ms. Panchal on behalf of M/s. Nanavaty Associates, ld. advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. After having heard the ld. advocates for the respective parties and after having gone through the order passed by the learned City Civil Judge at Ahmedabad, I am of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence the present Civil Revision Application is rejected. 3. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the issue involved in the Summary Suit which is pending before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, the hearing of the suit is required to be expedited. I, therefore, direct the City Civil Court at Ahemdabad to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of six months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court or from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order whichever is earlier. It is further directed that the trial court would see to it that the parties appearing in the proceedings may cooperate in early disposal of the suit. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. rmr. [ K.A. Puj, J. ]