IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 19 of 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------
REGISTRAT, SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY
Versus
SAHAYOG KHADI GRAMODHYOG TRUST, AHMEDABAD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Civil Revision Application No. 19 of 2002
MR MUKUND M DESAI for Petitioners No. 1-2
.......... for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE SHARAD DAVE
Date of Order: 10/01/2002
ORAL ORDER
With the consent of the LAs for the parties, the
matter is heard finally and disposed of at admission
stage only.
2.Mr. Desai, LA for the petitioner submits that,
in pursuance to the tender the petitioner was given order
to provide certain articles. On account of the dispute
arisen between the parties, the suit was filed by the
present respondent against the present petitioner. being
Summary Suit, No. 3787 of 2000, to recover the sum of
Rs.68,900/- in the court of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad,
At the time of hearing of summary suit, the Trial Court
was pleased to order for depositing an amount of
Rs.35,000/in the court within 4 weeks from the date of
the order and thereby, granted a conditional leave to
defend the suit by passing the detailed order on 20th
Sept. 2001.
3.Being dissatisfied by the said order, passed by
the Ld. City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, the original
defendant filed this revision application under Sec. 115
of the CPC and contended that the order is not clear and
as such the same requires the interference of this Hon.
Court.
It was further contended that, in the said order
the Chamber Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, has
observed as under:-
“On the other hand, the defendants have only
raised bare contentions of the supply of inferior
quality of the goods at a belated stage on the
ground that the said fact is intimated to the
plaintiff by the defendnats. But no documentary
evidence establishing the said fact is brought on
record by the defendants. Hence, I do not see
genuine defence in the said contentions except of
defence on jurisdictions and supply of inferior
quality of the goods by the plaintiff no
substantial defences are raised by the
defendants.”
4.Therefore, the submission of Mr. Desai, LA for
the petitioner, is that, there is contradictory statement
made by the Ld. Trial Court Judge. Therefore, the
petitioner seeks interference of this Honourable Court.
I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Ld.
Chamber Judge. At that, time, there may be some
discrepancy in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court
Judge, but ultimately, the order passed in Civil Suit by
the Ld. Trial Court judge is required to be seen as a
whole and not in a part. From reading the whole order,
it appears that, there is no jurisdictional error or
anything which may call for interference by this
Honourable Court.
5.When the order was dictated by me in the open
court, Mr. Desai, LA for the petitioner submits that,
the amount which is ordered to be deposited by the
defendant University is very high. Therefore, some
amount be reduced. I do not think it just and proper to
interfere with the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
However, I am of the opinion that, the appellant original
defendants are ordered to deposit Rs. 35,000/with the
Trial Court, within 4 weeks from today and on such
deposit, the Trial Court is directed to deposit such
amount in any nationalised bank in the name of
Registrar/Nazir of the Court, initially for a period of 7
years and to renew the same from time to time till the
disposal of the suit.
Accordingly, with the above direction, this Civil
Revision Application is disposed off at admission stage.
[SHARAD DAVE, J]
snt./