(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA) Heard learned AGP Shri Dave for the appellant and Shri Prajapati, appearing on Caveat, for the respondent.
Initially, ex-parte Ad.interim relief was granted in favour of respondent - original petitioner by the learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing Notice to the other side and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 28.7.2003, admitted the petition and ordered to continue Ad.interim relief in favour of the respondent original petitioner. This order of confirming the Ad.interim relief, passed by the learned Single Judge, way back on 28.7.2003, is sought to be challenged in this Appeal after a period of almost 1-1/2 years.
Only submission made by learned AGP Shri Dave for the Appellant was that while confirming the Ad.interim relief the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason. However, Shri Dave was not able to point out that though the request was made the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason. In view of this no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of confirming the Ad.interim relief in favour of the respondent - original petitioner. It may also be stated that initially ex-parte order of Ad.interim relief was never challenged by the Appellant and by way of this Appeal the appellants have challenged the order of confirmation of Ad.interim relief. Under the circumstances, there is no question of interference with such order of confirming the Ad.interim relief. Such order can be interfered by this Court only if extraordinary case is made out for interference. In absence of it there is no question of any interference.
At this stage, a request is made by learned AGP Shri Dave to direct the learned Single Judge to hear and decide Special Civil Application No.10790/02 at the earliest. However, Shri Prajapati, appearing on Caveat, for the respondent - original petitioner, pointed out that main Special Civil Application No.10790/02 was already placed on Board for final disposal before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is no question of passing such order. However, both the learned Counsel for the parties were not sure about the present position of main Special Civil Application, whether it is placed on Board before the learned Single Judge for final disposal or not.
Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that if the main Special Civil Application No.10790/02 is not placed for final disposal before the learned Single Judge, taking up such matters, then the present Appellants can approach the learned Single Judge by way of proper Application for fixing the main Special Civil Application No.10790/02 for its early disposal. We are sure that on such Application is made by the appellants the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, may try to decide the main Special Civil Application early. With this observation, this Appeal is dismissed.
At this stage, request is made by Shri Dave to make it clear that this Appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. However, the order is more than clear. We have not touched the merits of the case. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by Shri Dave seems to be not well-founded.
Civil Application is dismissed as the main Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(B.J.Shethna, J.) Date : January 10, 2005 (Sharad D.Dave, J.) *sas*