Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FAST/835/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 835 of 2010
=================================================
ADIVASI
SAKRIBEN ARJANBHAI & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Defendant(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Defendant(s) :
1,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 16/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The present
First Appeal is filed by Adivasi Sakriben Arjanbhai, aged 30 years,
occupation : house work along with Adivasi Arjanbhai Bhurabhai
Khokhariya, aged 40 years, occupation: agriculturist, on 12th
March 2010. The appeal is filed with the help of some person, who is
fully aware of the procedure of filing an appeal before this Court.
Not only that there is Misc. Civil application (Stamp) No.582 of 2010
seeking permission to prosecute the First Appeal as an indigent
person. That application is affirmed and the left hand thumb
impression of the applicant is identified by the learned advocate,
signature is illegible, who explained and interpreted the contents of
the application in Gujarati. However, the appeal is filed in ‘party
in person’.
2. The appeal
was notified before this Court on 16th July 2010 for non
removal of office objections. This Court passed the following order:
The matter
is notified for non-removal of the office objections. The fact that
the party-in-person is appearing in the matter, the Registry is
directed to issue notice/intimation to the party-in-person intimating
that the office objections shall be removed on or before 13th
August 2010. The matter be listed on 16th August 2010. The
intimation be sent by Regd. Post A.D.
The Department
by a RPAD letter dated 10th July 2010 intimated the party
in person the aforesaid order. Acknowledgment Receipt is on record.
It bears rubber stamp dated 27th July 2010 and also bears
thumb impression as an acknowledgment of receipt of the said letter.
Despite that the party in person has chosen not to remove the office
objections and not to remain present before the Court. Hence to see
that a message does not go to the effect that, by filing an appeal in
person one can seek undue indulgence, the present First Appeal is
dismissed for non removal of office objections. The Registry is
directed not to register the present First Appeal.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top