Nanubhai vs Unknown on 27 April, 2010

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CRA/1797/1998	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 1797 of 1998
 

With


 

CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 1798 of 1998
 

 
 
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 ?
		
	

 

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

NANUBHAI
J TRIVEDI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

ANANTRAY
RANCHHODBHAI SHUKAL - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
KV SHELAT for
Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6  
None
for Opponent(s) : 1, 
MR PT PATEL for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5  
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 27/04/2010 

 

 
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT

Shri
K.V. Shelat, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
petitioners has stated at the bar that during the pendency of the
proceedings before the learned trial Court/Small Causes Court, at
Ahmedabad, parties have settled the dispute amicably. Under the
circumstances, it is requested to dispose/dismiss both the revision
applications as having
become infructuous. Accordingly, both these applications are
dismissed as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged in each
of the Revision Application. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands
vacated forthwith. No costs.

(M.R.

Shah, J.)

*menon

Top