CA/1933/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR BRINGING HEIRS - No. 1933 of 2008 In CIVIL APPLICATION ý For Delay - NO. 14611 OF 2007 In FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2643 of 2007 ================================================= LATABEN KRISHNAKANT PARIKH & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus RAJESHKUMAR CHUNILAL MACHI & 2 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR.HIREN M MODI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2.2.1,2.2.2 ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 07/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
Mr.
Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate of the Applicant/Appellant states
that this application is filed in Civil Application (for delay) No.
14611 of 2007 in First Appeal (Stamp) No. 2643 of 2007 for bringing
the heirs and legal representatives of Respondent No.2 ý
Rajeshbhai Jivabhai Amin, who has died. He, therefore, seeks leave
to amend the cause-title by adding Civil Application for (for delay)
No. 14611 of 2007 as well as name of Respondent No.2 by showing
heirs and legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.2.
Leave
as prayed for is granted. The Applicant / Appellant is permitted to
amend the cause-title of this application by adding Civil
Application (for delay) No. 14611 of 2007 as well as by showing the
names of heirs and legal representatives of deceased Respondent
No.2.
Having
heard Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate of the Applicants /
Original Claimants and a perusal of the averments made in the
application, which have remained uncontroverted, as all the
Respondents are served but nobody has filed their appearance, and on
the facts and in the circumstances emerging from the record of the
case, according to us, since Respondent No.2 has died, his heirs and
legal representatives, who are shown in paragraph 3 of the
application, are not only necessary but proper party to adjudicate
the Civil Application, which is filed for condonation of delay in
filing the First Appeal (stamp) No. 2643 of 2007.
Seen
in the above context, the application deserves to be allowed by
granting the prayer made therein.
For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and accordingly it
is allowed with no order as to costs.
The
prayer in terms of paragraph 5(b) is granted and resultantly the
heirs and legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.2, shown
in paragraph 3 of the application, are ordered to be joined in Civil
Application No. 14611 of 2007 as well as in First Appeal (Stamp) No.
2643 of 2007.
Rule
is made absolute accordingly.
(A.M.Kapadia,J)
(Z.K.Saiyed,J)
Jayanti*