RASHIK LAL BHAGWANLAL Vs. MAVJIBHAIN KHAMBHALIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the objection raised by Ms. Trusha Patel, learned AGP, against impleading the respondent No. 2 as party to the petition. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the respondent No. 2. Permission granted. Respondent No. 2 be deleted.

(2.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has inter alia prayed that, Sthis Hon'ble Court will be pleased to : (A) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, -directing the learned Civil Judge (JD), Botad, the respondent No. herein, to pronounce the judgment which has been kept ready by his predecessor Mr. Bhatt, in view of the provisions of Order 20 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code; (B) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court will be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Regular Civil suit No. 33/89 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (JD), Botad; (C) pass such other and further order as the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper.

(3.) THE said relief has been prayed for in the background of the following facts: 3. 1 After hearing the parties, the learned civil Judge (JD), Botad had kept the judgment in Regular Civil Suit No. 33/1989 ready for the purpose of pronouncement, however, before the judgment could be pronounced, the respondent in present petition filed M. C. A. No. 83 of 1992 before the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar praying, inter alia, for transfer of the said r. C. S. No. 33 of 1989. 3. 2 In the said M. C. A. , it is submitted by the petitioner, that, the learned District judge had passed an order dated 28th august, 1992 directing the learned trial court not to pronounce the judgment. In that view of the matter, the judgment which was kept ready and was to be pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (JD), Botad, was not pronounced. 3. 3 It is further case of the petitioner that subsequently the said M. C. A. No. 83 of 1992 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the court by an order dated 6thseptember, 1993. A copy of the said order is produced by the petitioner on record at page " 18. The learned advocate for the respondent does not dispute the said factual aspects, i. e. the said M. C. A. No. 83 of 1992 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Court by an order dated 6th September, 1993. 3. 4 It is, in the aforesaid background of facts, that the petitioner preferred present petition praying for the reliefs incorporated in para 10 (a) of the petition inter alia praying that the learned Civil Judge (JD), boatad be directed to pronounce the judgment in R. C. S. No. 33/1989.