Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/2038/1993 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2038 of 1993
With
MISC.
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6410 of 1992
In
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP) No. 6408 of 1992
With
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP) No.6408 of
1992
=========================================================
PRABHAVATIBEN
NANJIBHAI SHILU - Petitioner(s)
Versus
AJAY
KETABHAI THAKORE &2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAVI R TRIVEDI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 09/04/2010
ORAL ORDER
The
captioned application being Civil Application No.2038 of 1993 has
been preferred seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
The
Appeal referred to in the Civil Application i.e. First Appeal (Stamp)
No.6408 of 1992 came to be filed some where in March, 1992 against
the award dated 4th October, 1991 passed in M.A.C.P.
No.296 of 1986.
The
applicant/appellant has also preferred application being Misc. Civil
Application (Stamp) No.6410 of 1992 seeking leave to prosecute the
Appeal as an indigent person.
Any
action with regard to the said Misc. Civil Application (Stamp)
No.6410 of 1992 seeking leave to prosecute the Appeal as an indigent
person, has not been taken by the applicant since the date on which
the application was filed and the registration of the application has
continued with Stamp number and the application has remained pending
and idle since the date of filing. The applicant has not taken any
action with regard to the First Appeal also though it appears to have
been filed some where in March, 1992 and the registration of the
Appeal has also remained with Stamp number.
So
far as Civil Application No.2038 of 1993 is concerned, as noted
above, the application has been preferred seeking condonation of
delay caused in filing the Appeal. The applicant has not even cared
to fill up the space which is left blank and the number of days by
which filing of the Appeal has been delayed, has not been filled-up.
By order dated 30th August, 1994, the Court had issued
Rule in the application, but thereafter, any steps, including the
step to serve the process, do not appear to have been taken. On 30th
September, 1994, the Court had passed below mentioned order.
The
applicant-appellant is directed to file copy of the judgment. Only
after the aforesaid direction is complied with, the application shall
be placed on Board before the Court.
Since
then, any action by the appellant has not been taken with regard to
present application.
Consequently,
the delay caused in filing the Appeal has not been condoned until
now. The Appeal has also remained unprosecuted. The application
seeking leave to prosecute the Appeal as an indigent person also has
not been granted. In such circumstances, the cause for prosecuting
the Civil Application No.2038 of 1993 has been lost.
Today
when the application is taken up, learned advocate for the applicant
is not present. Any purpose of entertaining any of the Civil
Applications, at this stage and after so many years, would not be
served. The Civil Application No.2038 of 1993 and Misc. Civil
Application (Stamp) No.6410 of 1992 are, therefore, dismissed for
non-prosecution.
In
view of the aforesaid order, the First Appeal (Stamp) No.6408 of 1992
also would not survive and the Appeal also stands dismissed for
non-prosecution.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top