Gujarat High Court High Court

Patel vs Unknown on 20 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Patel vs Unknown on 20 April, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CRA/77/1990	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 77 of 1990
 

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

PATEL
JIVANLAL THAKARSHI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

VALJIBHAI
P MISTRY - Opponent(s)
 

===========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PS CHAMPANERI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MC BAROT for Opponent(s) : 1, 
MR KK
BRAHMBHATT for Opponent(s) :
1, 
===========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 20/04/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. It
is admitted position that sole petitioner has expired as far as back
in the year 2002. Even one Civil Application (Stamp) No.7201 of 2002
in Civil Revision Application No.77 of 1990 which was filed for
bringing heirs of applicant on record came to be disposed of in the
year 2003. It is reported by the Registry that said application was
disposed of as registration was refused. Be that as it may. Original
petitioner has expired since 2002 and heirs of original petitioner
are not brought on record. Under the circumstances, present Revision
Application is dismissed as having been abated. At this stage, it is
reported by Mr.Vagehela, learned Advocate for the petitioner that one
Misc.Civil Application has been preferred by the heirs of original
petitioner in Civil Application (Stamp) No.7201 of 2002 in Civil
Revision Application No.77 of 1990 with a prayer to restore said
Civil Application (Stamp) No.7201 of 2002. However, there was delay
in preferring said application and therefore, another application is
also filed to condone the delay. No steps are taken by the heirs of
the original petitioner to condone delay and even to restore said
application. It is to be noted that as stated above, even as per
Registry said Civil Application (Stamp) No.7201 of 2002 was disposed
of as registration was refused. Be that as it may. Heirs of original
petitioner are not brought on record.

2. In
view of above, present Revision Application is dismissed as having
been abated. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands
vacated forthwith.

[M.R.Shah,J.]

satish

   

Top