Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3115/2010 1/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3115 of 2010
=========================================
MARUTI
LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARATKUMAR
HIMMATLAL UPADHYAY AND OTHERS
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
the Petitioners
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 10/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the petitioners.
2. Learned
advocate for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to an
order passed by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Jhaveri) in
Special Civil Application No.8026 of 2009 dated 18.11.2009, wherein
this Court observed in para-5 as under:-
5. It is
true that when the order was passed by the learned Trial Court,
petitioner was unable to engage an advocate for his appearance. In
view of the fact that the respondent was a local leading advocate.
Now the proceedings had already completed at Trial Court level.
Therefore it will be not appropriate for this Court to entertain this
application at this stage. However if an application is moved by the
petitioner than the trial court will expedite the same in accordance
with law. With this observation this petition stands disposed of.
3. It is the
case of the petitioner that after the aforesaid order was passed on
18.11.2009, the petitioner herein filed applications Exhs.141 and
142, which are rejected by the order impugned in this petition dated
18.12.2009.
3.1 Learned
advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned
Judge has not taken into consideration the reasons set out in the
applications which are filed from time to time. He submitted that
the learned Judge has also not taken into consideration that in a
suit filed in the year 1990, though the written statement was filed
on 05.07.1991, the issues could be framed only on 17.09.2003 and
thereafter, the plaintiff started with his evidence.
4. The matter
requires consideration.
RULE
returnable on 06.04.2010.
In the
meantime, the Court below is directed to maintain status quo
qua proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.202 of 1990.
Direct
service is permitted.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top