Gujarat High Court High Court

Chief vs Chawda on 12 November, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Chief vs Chawda on 12 November, 2008
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SA/247/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SECOND
APPEAL No. 247 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================================


 

CHIEF
SECRETARY & 4 - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

CHAWDA
SAJANBA WD/O LALSINH RAMSINH & 1 - Defendant(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance : 
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 1 - 5. 
None for
Defendant(s) : 1 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4,2.2.5
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 12/11/2008 

 

 
 


 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
Ms. Falguni Patel, the learned Asstt. Government Pleader appearing
for the Appellants. Perused the Orders passed by the Courts. The
Court is of the view that the issues raised in the Second Appeal are
required to be considered by the Court and hence the appeal is
admitted and the following susbtantial questions of law are framed
for consideration of the Court :-

Whether,
in the fact and circumstances of the case, the courts below are
right in condoning delay entertaining civil suit which is filed
after long lapse and barred by the Limitation Act?

Whether,
in the fact and circumstances of the case, the courts below are
right in entertaining Civil Suit and exercising its jurisdiction not
vested in it as the civil court’s jurisdiction is impliedly ousted
more particularly when Chapter III of the Bombay Police Act, 1951
specifically provides appropriate machinery of proceedings for
approaching appropriate authority?

Whether,
in the fact and circumstances of the case, the judgments of courts
below are perverse and contrary to evidence on record in as much as
in treating the plaintiff as a regular employee when the plaintiff
was a probationer and had not produced any evidence to show that the
plaintiff was regularized or his probation was confirmed?

(K.A.

Puj, J.)

(Caroline)

   

Top