Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/10816/2010 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 10816 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3716 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
CHANDRAKANT
LALJIBHAI Applicant
Versus
GENERAL
PROJECT MANAGER & 1 Opponents
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
ANU S VERMA for
Applicant : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5
MR VALMIK VYAS
FOR MR AJAY R MEHTA for Opponent:1
MR JANAK RAVAL AGP for
Opponent :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 27/09/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Rule.
Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned advocate and Mr. Janak Raval, learned AGP
waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of opponent Nos. 1 and 2
respectively. By consent Rule is fixed forthwith.
The
applicant original respondent in First Appeal No. 3716 of 2009
has taken out this application for seeking appropriate direction
with regard to withdrawal of the amount deposited by opponent no. 1
in compliance with order dated 22.9.2009 passed by this Court while
admitting the Appeal. The grounds for seeking withdrawal are
mentioned in the memo of application mainly revolving around the
economic condition of applicant original respondent.
Shri
Valmik Vyas, learned advocate for Shri Mehta, learned advocate for
the Opponent no. 1 has submitted that allowing of application in its
totality would render the appeal itself infructuous as even if at
the end of hearing of the main matter and in the event the appellant
succeeded in the appeal, it would not be possible to recover in any
manner. He however, submitted that the Division Bench of this Court
in Misc. Civil Application For Orders Nos. 565 of 2010 in Civil
Application No. 13737 of 2008 with Misc. Civil Application No. 566
of 2010 I Civil Application No. 13738 of 2010 to Misc. Civil
Application No. 570 of 2010 in Civil Application No. 13742 of 2008
has permitted 50% of the original amount deposited to be withdrawn
and therefore, urged the Court not to allow the application in its
entirety but pass appropriate order so as to take care of dire
requirement of the applicant.
This
Court is of the view that looking to the averments made in the
application and the submissions made on behalf of the applicant by
learned advocate for the applicant, 50% amount originally deposited
with learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad may be ordered to
be disbursed to the applicant on proper verification. The said
disbursement would be subject to the final out come of the appeal.
Civil Application stands partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to
the aforesaid extent. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J .)
pallav
Top