Gujarat High Court High Court

Ushaben vs Sukhabhai on 15 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ushaben vs Sukhabhai on 15 March, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Ms.Justice B.M.Trivedi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/60720/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 607 of 2011
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 3530 of 2010
 

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

 

USHABEN
WD/O RAMESHCHANDRA THEKADI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SUKHABHAI
MAGANBHAI RAVAL & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
R.K.MANSURI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED
for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Respondent(s) :
2, 
MR PARESH M DARJI for Respondent(s) : 3, 
RULE UNSERVED for
Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 15/03/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. Mr.

R.K.Mansuri, learned counsel states that there is no insurance
company of the jeep and therefore respondent no.4 is not required to
be joined as the party and he prays for deletion of the party
respondent no.4 in the present application as well as in the First
Appeal. Hence, respondent no.4 shall stand deleted.

2. The
present application is for condonation of delay of 28 days in
preferring appeal against the judgment and the order passed by the
Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 1060 of 2004. Ms. Ashlesha Patel for Ms.
Vasavdatta Bhatt appears for respondent no.2 and Mr. Darji has filed
appearance for respondent no.3.

3. Considering
the facts and circumstances and in view of the grounds stated in the
application for condonation of delay, sufficient cause is made out.
Hence, delay deserves to be condoned and therefore condoned. Rule
made absolute accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(Ms.B.M.TRIVEDI,
J.)

jani

   

Top