Gujarat High Court High Court

Rambhai vs Punkajkumar on 30 November, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rambhai vs Punkajkumar on 30 November, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/4896/2010	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 4896 of 2010
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 ?
		
	

 

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


 

RAMBHAI
TEJABHAI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PUNKAJKUMAR
MOHANBHAI - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
VIJAY H NANGESH for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
========================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

Date
: 05/05/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1. Rule.

Shri KR Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates
for the respective parties, the application is taken up for final
hearing today.

2. Present
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred
by the applicant-original appellant to condone the delay 4 days in
preferring the Miscellaneous Civil Application to restore the Second
Appeal No. 204 of 2009.

3. Having
heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and as the
application is not opposed by Shri KR Dave, learned advocate for the
respondent, delay caused in preferring an application for restoration
is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.

(M.R.SHAH,
J.)

kaushik

   

Top