HARISH KUMAR BAPALAL Vs. CHHANALAL RANCHHODLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Civil Revision Application is original defendant No. 2.The original plaintiff and original defendants Nos. 1 3 and 4 are the opponents in the Civil Revision Application. The plaintiff filed a summary suit being summary suit No. 55/1963 in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad against the four defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 2000.00. Thereafter a summons for judgment appears to have been taken out and on February 10 1964 the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes passed an order granting conditional leave to defend to defendant No. 2 the present petitioner. The condition was that the second defendant should deposit the amount claimed in the suit within two weeks; and on such deposit being made the defendant was granted leave to defend. The present Civil Revision Application was filed on March 4 1964 against this conditional order passed by the learned Judge in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad.

(2.) After the Civil Revision Application was filed on March 5 1964 it was admitted and a rule returnable on March 30 1964 was directed to be issued. An ad interim stay in terms of para 4(b) of the petition was also granted on March 5 1964 and as a result of that stay order pending the hearing and final disposal of the Civil Revision Application Summary Suit No 55/1964 in the Court of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad was directed to be stayed. However it appears that before the stay order passed by this Court was communicated to the Court of Small Causes on March 5 1964 the decree in the Court of Small Causes was passed against the present petitioner and the learned Judge of the Small Causes signed the decree on May 29 1964.

(3.) At the hearing of the Civil Revision Application a preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the first opponent the original plaintiff that in view of the passing of the decree against the present petitioner the Civil Revision Application no longer survives and it is not maintainable any longer. In the course of the present judgment I am merely concerned with this preliminary objection.