CHAIRMAN GEB Vs. M M LAKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision application on behalf of defendants-petitioners arises from the order dated 20th October 1994 of the Incharge, 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara, below ex.10, in Civil Appeal No.247 of 1994, filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the order of the learned trial court below ex.5.

(2.) The I/c. Extra Assistant Judge has stayed the order of the learned trial court till 12:00 noon of 21.10.94. The matter has been taken up for hearing on 21.10.94 by the regular Extra Assistant Judge on 21.10.94. The learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara, passed the order on ex.10, under which the order dated 20.10.94 was suspended till 28.10.94. From the order dated 21.10.94, I find that the counsel for the Board has not attended the court despite of the fact that the court has called him right from 11:35 a.m. to 12:10 noon. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court passed the order to maintain status-quo.

(3.) This civil revision application has been filed by the Board before this Court on 11th November 1994 and it has come up for admission before this court on 24.11.94. Though this matter has been admitted, interim relief has not been granted by this Court. I fail to see any justification of the Board to file this civil revision application before this Court. It was only a matter of grant of temporary injunction in appeal and instead of approaching this court against that order, either the Board should have taken steps to pursue the first appellate court to vacate that order or to hear the matter finally at an early date. Such civil revision application is ill-advised. The Board is having its legal Officers and I have been informed that the Legal Department of the Board is under the direct control of a judicial officer of the Gujarat State Higher Judicial Services. I am constrained to observe that the Legal Department in the Board is there to advise it properly so that unnecessary people's money is not wasted in unavoidable and uncalled for litigations. It is not necessary for the Board to file revision applications in each and every case and to waste people's money. In case the matter would have been taken properly, then instead of advising to file revision application, steps would have been taken to get the Appeal itself decided at an early date. Moreover, this revision application is only for the sake of not allowing any of the orders of the court below to go unchallenged. Stay has not been granted by this court and I do not find anything on the record of this civil revision application that at any time steps have been taken by the Board to see that this Civil Revision Application is listed for admission at an early date. No purpose has been served by filing of this civil revision application before this court except that the Board has to incur heavy expenses of litigation.