Gujarat High Court High Court

Satishkumar vs Suratsing on 4 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Satishkumar vs Suratsing on 4 April, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/141/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 141 of 2011
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16626 of 2010
 

To


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 162 of 2011
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16647 of 2010
 

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


 

SATISHKUMAR
HARBANSLAL ANEJA THROUGH POA HARBANSLAL MEHATB - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

SURATSING
TEJASING - THE HEIR OF TEJASING KISHANSING & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

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


 

 
Appearance
: 
MR
NALIN K THAKKER for Appellant(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
MRS. MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. 
=========================================



	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM
				: 
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
			
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 04/04/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

The
appellant(s) preferred their respective writ petitions against order
passed by the Deputy Collector, Nakhatrana, in their respective
appeal Nos.69/10, 71/10 to 91/10. Challenge was made on the ground
that he had no jurisdiction to pass order in the appeal filed by
respondent No.1 after 23 years, as the same is not maintainable. The
appellant also raised question of jurisdiction of the authority to
admit the appeal.

The case was taken up by the learned Single Judge, who by impugned
order dated 28.12.2010 dismissed writ petition Nos. 16626 of 2010 to
16647 of 2010, by passing an order as quoted hereunder:-

“Heard
learned Advocate Mr. Nalin K. Thakker for the petitioner.

On
perusal of the order under challenge, the Court finds no substance in
the matter. Hence, it is dismissed.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the facts, impugned common order dated 28.12.2010 being
a non-speaking order, we set aside the same and remit all the above
writ petitions for hearing and disposal on merit.

Post
SCA Nos. 16626 of 2010 to 16647 of 2010 before the appropriate Court
on 25th April, 2011 for decision on merit. The
appellant(s) may raise question of interim relief before the learned
Single Judge.

(S.J.

Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)

(J.B.

Pardiwala, J.)

*/Mohandas

   

Top