Gujarat High Court High Court

Executive vs Despite on 6 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Executive vs Despite on 6 April, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/720/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 720 of 2010
 

In


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 256 of 2007
 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2626 of 2006
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

NURALI
SAVA (EXPIRED) - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
VAIJAYANTI PATHAK, AGP for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 06/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

By
order dated 18/3/2010, the application being Civil Application No.256
of 2007 for condonation of delay came to be rejected for want of
prosecution.

With
a view to affording an opportunity to the applicant to take necessary
steps to bring heirs/legal representatives, but only after providing
correct, latest and complete address and names of heirs/legal
representatives, the order dated 18/3/2001 was passed in Civil
Application No.256 of 2007 in which it is observed that:

Hence,
the same is disposed of at this stage. It is, however, clarified
that if at all the applicant is in a position to get complete and
accurate address as well as the names and other relevant details of
the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased-opponent, then it
will be open to the applicant to prefer, in accordance with and
subject to law limitation, appropriate application for the same
purpose.

Despite
the said observations, the applicant has preferred present
application which does not contain any details about the names and
correct, complete and latest address of the respondents. Hence, this
application does not deserve to be entertained and is dismissed. The
observations made in the earlier order dated 18/3/2010 passed in
Civil Application No.256 of 2007 would still operate for reasonable
time subject to the limitation.

(K.M.THAKER,
J.)

(ila)

   

Top