Gujarat High Court High Court

Pu vs District on 27 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Pu vs District on 27 December, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/623620/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 6236 of 2008
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2223 of 1995
 

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

PU
YAGNIK - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

DISTRICT
EDUCATION OFFICER & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance
: 
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for
Petitioner(s) : 1,PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. 
DELETED for Respondent(s) :
5, 
=================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/06/2009 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

The
matter is notified today with a remark ‘P.U. Yagnik has expired’. On
perusal of the record the Court notices that on 21.07.2008 this Curt
has passed the following order.

The application is
filed by one Shri P/. U. Yagnik. One Ms.Kirtiben Dave is present
before the Court and informs the Court that she is the sister-in-law
of applicant-Shri P.U. Yagnik. She further informs the Court that
the applicant has undergone by-pass surgery and the doctor has
advised him not to take strain for about six to eight months.

On
24.02.2009 this Court recorded that,

Ms.Kirtiben Dave
is present before the Court. She informs the Court that Mr.P.U.
Yagnik, the applicant, who was appearing as Party-in-Person in the
matter has expired on 15th November 2008. She wants some
time to file necessary application for getting her impleaded as
applicant. At her request adjourned to 5th March 2009.

That
request was also granted. Later on, on 05.03.2009 the matter was
adjourned to 15.04.2009 at the request of Kirtiben Dave. On
15.04.2009 she did not remain present. Therefore, the Court directed
the Registry to send an intimation to the Party in Person to remain
present on 06.05.2009. On 06.05.2009 the Registry was directed to
communicate the order by speed Post by adjourning the matter to
12.05.2009. On 12.05.2009 the matter was adjourned to today and the
Registry was directed to communicate the date of adjournment by
Registered Post Acknowledgment Due.

2. Today,
when the matter is called out, nobody is present. Taking into
consideration the fact that earlier Party in Person was appearing and
later on, Kirtiben Dave was appearing in the matter, it is deemed fit
to direct the Registry to inform Kirtiben Dave to remain present in
the matter at 10.30 AM on 27th July 2009. The Registry is
directed to intimate this order by Registered Post Acknowledgment
Due. Adjourned to 27th July 2009.

(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)

karim

   

Top