Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1357/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1357 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9547 of 2009
=====================================
CHUNILAL
HARILAL PANDYA & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
VRAJLAL
MOHANLAL SONI - Opponent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR JV MEHTA for Applicant(s) :
1 - 2.MS KRISHNA B MEHTA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for
Opponent(s) : 1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 13/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 The
present application is filed praying;
5(a). Be
pleased to admit this Miscellaneous Civil
Application and be pleased to recall the order dated
8-4-2010 passed by His Lordship Justice R.R. Tripathi J. in Special
Civil Application no. 9547/2009, by restoring the above
Special Civil Application for admission in the interest
of justice.
2.0 This
application is filed on 27th
April 2010 for an order passed on 8th
April 2010. The order reads as under:
The
matter was called out in the morning.
Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the petitioners was not present.
Instead of dismissing the matter for default, it was kept back, so as
to enable learned advocate Mr.Mehta to appear and represent his case.
Even
in the second half,
learned advocate Mr.Mehta is not present. Hence, the matter is
dismissed for non-prosecution.
(emphasis
supplied)
3.0 The
learned advocate for the applicant states that he was busy in the
First Court and therefore, he could not attend this matter. He
further states that he inquired in the recess and he learnt that the
matter is already dismissed. He further states that he also inquired
and found that the order is already signed and therefore, he did not
think it necessary to mention in the Court that he could not attend
the matter.
3.1 All
this is not borne out from the record. This Court follows a
consistent practice of calling out the matter in the first half,
keeping the matter in the second half, as a matter of course. If in
the second half, the learned advocate is not present then the same is
dismissed for non prosecution. The orders are signed only after the
Court hours and sometimes, on the next day.
3.2 Mr.
Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant with a standing of 30
years, is making all these incorrect statements.
4.0 As
the aforesaid submissions are found to be incorrect, this petition is
dismissed with cost of Rs.1,500/-. The Registry is directed
to send a copy of this order to the petitioner.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top