Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8985/2004 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8985 of 2004
=========================================
ANAND
SEVA ASHRAM TRUST & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MAHANT
BALVANTGIRI GURU ANANDGIRI & 164 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MS
YAMINI J DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR PRASHANT MANKAD for Petitioner(s) : 2 - 4.MR
JAGDISH H MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 2 - 4.
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N)
for Respondent(s) : 1,1.2.1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4,7 - 9,16 - 20,22 - 28,31 - 36, 39,42 - 45, 47, 50, 52,54 - 57,59 -
61, 63,66 - 67,69 - 73,75 - 76, 86,89 - 90,92 - 93,95 - 114,116 -
117,119 - 122,124 - 128, 130,132 - 134, 136, 138,140 - 147,149 - 161,
163, 165,
RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 5 - 6,10 - 12,29 -
30,37 - 38,40 - 41, 46,48 - 49, 53, 62,64 - 65, 74,77 - 78,80 - 85,87
- 88, 91, 94, 115, 118, 123, 129, 135, 137, 139,
148,
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for Respondent(s) : 13 - 15, 21, 51, 58,
79, 131,
None for Respondent(s) : 68,
- for Respondent(s) :
0.0.0
- for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0
- for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0
- for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. On
05.10.2010, this Court passed following order :-
“The
petition is listed in the cause list of matters which are placed for
orders. The office has notified that several respondents have not
been served with the process issued by the Court. The petitioners
have not taken any steps to ensure that the unserved respondents may
be duly served with the process of the Court. It has been requested
by the learned advocate that he could not contact his client.
However, he still requests for time to receive instructions. As a
last chance, the petition is adjourned to 11/10/2010. If by that
time any substantive action is not taken, appropriate order including
the order of dismissal for want of prosecution may be passed. To be
listed amongst first five matters of first board.”
2. Today when the
matter is called out, learned Advocate for the petitioner is not
present. No steps have been taken by the petitioner as per order
dated 05.10.2010 passed by this Court. It seems that petitioner is
not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, dismissed.
[M.D.Shah, J.]
satish
Top