Shardaben vs Ranjitbhai on 28 September, 2010

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/2216/2010	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2216 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2747 of 2006
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
 
 
=================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To
			be referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

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


 

SHARDABEN
THAKORBHAI VALAND - Petitioner
 

Versus
 

RANJITBHAI
JITUBHAI SINDHA & 3 - Respondents
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MA PAREKH for Petitioner: 
RULE SERVED for Respondents : 1,
4, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent : 2, 
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)
for Respondent : 3, 
=================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
JUDGMENT

Shri
Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that
additional affidavit as ordered has already been filed. He submits
that all the respondents have been already served, except original
respondent no.3, who has been ordered to be deleted. In view of
this, all the existing respondents have been served.

Rule
is served, however no one appears for the respondents. In view of
this, the delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned for
the reasons stated in the application and the affidavit. Accordingly
delay is condoned. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.

Registry
to give regular number to the appeal and place it for admission
hearing in due course.

[
S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ]

/vgn

Top