JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is placed before this court in a very unusual circumstance. Initially, it was fully heard by the Hon'ble First Court consisting of Hon'ble Chief Justice Bhawani Singh and H.K. Rathod, J. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment was reserved and C.A.V. judgment was pronounced on 15th April, 2004 and the appeal of the appellant, who was aged 75 years and suffering from the last stage of Cancer, was allowed and the respondent Bank was directed to implement the order of the court and to give necessary benefits available to the appellant as a consequence of the said order within two months from the date of receipt of xerox copy of the order. It was also reported in 2004 (2) G.L.H. Page 514.

(2.) In view of the observations made by their Lordships in their order dated 23rd December, 2004 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.662/2004 and other applications, learned counsel Shri Pranav Desai for the respondent - Bank submitted that this appeal be heard afresh by this court and it may be decided strictly in accordance with law.

(3.) However, learned senior counsel Shri Yatin Oza appearing with Shri Sunil K. Shah placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of BAI DHULI Wd/o NARSIBHAI CHHOTALAL AND OTHERS vs. BAI ICHHA w/o SOMABHAI CHHOTABHAI reported in 1983 G.L.H. Page 290. It was a case in which late Justice A.N. Surti, sitting as a Single Judge of this court, had decided the matter but before his Lordship signed the order, his Lordship unfortunately expired. Therefore, the said matter was placed before another learned Single Judge of this court [Coram: S.B. Majmudar, J. (as he then was)] and it was held by the learned Single Judge that once the order was passed by the learned Single Judge, who unfortunately died before signing it, then the same order has to be simply signed by another Judge before whom the matter is placed, without fresh hearing. Here, it is a reverse case where the appeal of the deceased appellant was allowed by the Division Bench but the said order had to be recalled because it was passed in favour of a dead person.