Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10203/2010 1/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10203 of 2010
=========================================================
HARSHADRAY
UDAYSHANKAR BHATT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HANSABEN
KESHAVLAL JOSHI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RC JANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 13/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
Court has perused the report dated 8.9.2010.
At
this stage it can be said that prima facie the report and
explanation by the learned Trial Court does not appear to be proper.
When
the order dated 19.4.2010 requiring action to be taken against the
contemnor under Order 39 Rule 2A was not disturbed by the learned
Appellate Court and when the learned First Appellate Court had, by
the order dated 30.7.2010 confirmed the said order and it had, in
turn, directed that:- defendants are hereby given a chance and/or
time and it is hereby directed that the order of the Trial Court
regarding civil imprisonment be implemented after 30 days from the
date of this order , the learned Court was supposed to take
necessary steps as per the said order dated 30.7.2010 and to ensure
that the defendants are taken in civil imprisonment.
It
is the case of the petitioners before this Court that though the
petitioners i.e. original defendants tried to surrender, for one
reason or another the learned Trial Court did not act on the order
dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The
reasons mentioned in para 2 of the report dated 8.9.2010 are not
satisfactory and it comes out that only on the ground that the Xerox
copy were available and certified copy was not available etc. the
Trial Court did not take necessary action. It is really surprising
that on one had when the petitioners approached the learned Trial
Court and surrendered themselves and also submitted on the record of
the Court, the copy of the order passed by the learned First
Appellate Court and on subsequent occasion they submitted copy of
the order passed by this Court and despite their readiness to
surrender, the Trial Court on the ground of want of certified copy
did not take steps as required in law, despite the order of the
learned First Appellate Court’s order dated 30.7.2010.
Therefore,
the Registrar (Judicial) is requested to look into the matter and
submit his report.
From
the report of the learned Trial Court, it appears that after
6.9.2010 i.e. when the copies of the relevant orders became
available with the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have not
remained present before the Court.
Mr.
Jani learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that to
establish their bonafide, the petitioners would remain present
before the learned Trial Court tomorrow.
In
view of the aforesaid statement, it is directed that the petitioners
herein will remain present before the learned Trial Court tomorrow
and then the learned Trial Court will take necessary steps as may be
required in law in view of the order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the
learned First Appellate Court read with the order dated 19.4.2010
passed by the learned Trial Court.
The
Registry shall inform this order to the learned Trial Court today
itself by the fax and telephone.
S.O.
16.9.2010.
In
the meanwhile, the Registrar (Judicial) would look into the matter
and place on record his views and the learned Trial Court also shall
forward its report about the action taken in pursuance of today’s
order.
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top