Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/867520/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8675 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
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?
=========================================================
DINESH
RAM BULCHANDANI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHAH
WOODPLY - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
G RAMAKRISHNAN for Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 19/03/2009
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
the petitioner original defendant has prayed for an appropriate
Writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned
order dated 12.04.2004 passed by the learned City Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad below leave to defend application in Summary Suit No.8312
of 2003 by which the learned Judge has granted conditional leave to
defend the petitioner original defendant to defend aforesaid suit
on condition to deposit Rs.25,000/-.
2. At
the outset it is required to be noted that while admitting the
present Special Civil Application, the learned Single Judge has
granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 6(b) on condition
that the petitioner shall deposit 40% of the suit claim within a
period of four weeks from 11.03.2005 and the petitioner must have
deposited the said amount as it was conditional interim order granted
by the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may. Considering the
impugned order passed by the learned Judge granting conditional leave
to petitioner to defend aforesaid suit on condition to deposit
Rs.25,000/- cannot be said to erroneous and/or illegal and/or
contrary to the provisions. Prima-facie it appears that as
such there are no triable issues and the learned Judge has dealt with
the same in the impugned order. Against the claim of Rs.52,818/- for
the goods supplied, the learned Judge has granted conditional leave
to the petitioner on deposit of Rs.25,000/- only.
3. In
view of above when there are no triable issues, still the learned
Judge has directed the petitioner to deposit only Rs.25,000/-. Under
the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge
deserves interference of this Court in exercise of powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. For
the reasons stated above, the petition fails and deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule discharged.
Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
However, in the facts and circumstances and when the petitioner was
prosecuting present petition, balance amount to be deposited pursuant
to the order passed by the learned Judge impugned in the present
proceedings within a period of 6(six) weeks from today and time to
make payment is extended till then.
[M.R.Shah,J.]
satish
Top