Gujarat High Court High Court

Anabhai vs Mohansingh on 11 August, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Anabhai vs Mohansingh on 11 August, 2008
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/9382/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR DIRECTION No. 9382 of 2008
 

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

 

ANABHAI
GALJIBHAI & 5 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

MOHANSINGH
BAHADURSINGH & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MUKTESH V PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6. 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 11/08/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate Mr. MV Patel on behalf of applicant.

Considering
averment made in para 2 followed by affidavit of Shantaben daughter
of Fatabhai Anabhai, which is quoted as under:

?S2. The
respondent no. 2 driver was not served the notice, he was deleted by
the request of advocate for the appellants. The respondent no. 2
owner of the said vehicle was not served the notice, hence
Honourable Court order to delete the respondent no. 2 hence the
office of the Honourable Court deleted the respondent no. 2 on dated
7/7/1986, it was not deleted by the advocate of the applicants. The
said matter was rule and kept for final hearing. The advocate for
the appellants drew the attention of the Honourable High Court that
office has wrongly deleted the respondent no. 2 owner of the said
vehicle on 7/7/1986. As per the order dated 9/4/1986 of the
Honourable High Court. The where about for the respondent no. 2
address are not available as there is office not their or in
existence, hence it will be required to published in the newspaper
to serve the notice of this matter to respondent no. 2 in newspaper
as the responsibility of the respondent no. 3 will be if it is done
to serve by public notice in the news paper, hence the purpose will
be served for the interest of justice and the parties.??

In
light of aforesaid averment made in this application. The prayer
made in application is granted. Respondent no. 2 Owner M/s Chitah
Travels,office at 01, Jay Ambenagar, Thaltej, Ahmedabad is join as
party respondent no. 2 in First appeal no. 207/1986. Accordingly,
cause title is to be amended.

Therefore,
in First appeal no. 207/1986, issue fresh notice to respondent no. 2
returnable on 11/9/2008.

Accordingly,
present civil application is disposed of. Direct service is
permitted.

(H.K.RATHOD,
J)

asma

   

Top