Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/259/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 259 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 15532 of 2010
In
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 259 of 2010
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Applicant(s)
Versus
SALOT
MAKSUD AAMADBHAI - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SACHI MATHUR AGP for
Petitioners
MR SUNIL L MEHTA for
Respondent
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 03/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned AGP Ms.Sachi Mathur for petitioners and learned advocate
Mr.Sunil L. Mehta for respondent.
2. In
this matter, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order
passed by Addl. District Judge and Presiding Officer, 2nd
Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Civil Misc. Appeal No.83 of 2010, decided
on 20.10.2010.
2.1 Initially,
the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2010 was filed by
plaintiff – present respondent, challenging termination order
passed by petitioners. During pendency of aforesaid civil suit, one
application was made at Exh.5 with a prayer to grant interim relief
against termination order. That Exh.5 application has been dismissed
on 14.7.2010 by Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot. Against which,
appeal came to be preferred by plaintiff which has been allowed in
favour of plaintiff by order dated 20.10.2010 and order passed by
13th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Regular Civil
Suit No.80 of 2010 below Exh.5 dated 14.7.2010 has been set aside and
ad-interim injunction is granted as per Para.2 till final disposal of
the suit. Therefore, lower appellate Court has granted stay against
termination order means mandatory order has been passed by lower
appellate Court. Against which, present Civil Revision Application is
filed by petitioners.
3. This
Court has issued notice on 15.12.2010, making it returnable on
30.12.2010 and also granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para.5(B).
Para.5(B) is quoted as under :
“5(B) Be
pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the
judgment dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Addl. Dist. Judge and
Presiding Officer, Second Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Civil Misc.
Appeal No.83 of 2010.”
4. I
have considered facts and circumstances of present matter. The
respondent was appointed as ad-hoc tutor in Class-II of Pharmacology
in MP Shah College, Jamnagar w.e.f. 21.12.1995. From that date
onwards, he remained continued in service by various office orders
and ultimately, his service was terminated on 22.12.2009. Meanwhile,
there was no break in service given by petitioners. This termination
order was challenged in civil suit filed by plaintiff. This legal
fight between both parties against interim order passed by trial
Court as well as appellate Court upon Exh.5. Therefore, according to
my opinion, if this Civil Revision Application is admitted, then it
will take some more time to decide it finally, which will adversely
affect the status of plaintiff and also delay the proceeding of civil
suit which will not be in the interest of either party. Therefore, it
would be in the fitness of things, if the trial Court is directed to
decide Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2010 within reasonable time with
co-operation of respective parties, which will meet ends of justice
between the parties and during that, interim order passed by this
Court on 15.12.2010 may remain continued till Regular Civil Suit
No.80 of 2010 is finally decided by trial Court.
5. In
light of this background, it is directed to Civil Judge (SD) Rajkot
to decide Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2010 finally, after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to respective parties, as early as
possible preferably within a period of four months from date of
receiving copy of present order, in accordance with law and during
pendency of aforesaid civil suit, interim order passed by this Court
on 15.12.2010 in terms of Para.5(B), as referred above, shall remain
continued till aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No.80 of 2010 is finally
decided by the Civil Judge (SD), Rajkot.
6. In
view of above observations and directions, present Civil Revision
Application is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.
7. The
trial Court may give priority to this Regular Civil Suit No.80 of
2010 because the plaintiff is out of job, so he may be able to get
justice within the reasonable period.
8. Consequently,
Civil Application No.15532 of 2010 is disposed of accordingly.
[
H.K.RATHOD, J. ]
(vipul)
BODY>
Top