Gujarat High Court High Court

Ayyub vs State on 10 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ayyub vs State on 10 November, 2011
Author: H.K.Rathod,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/6308/1996	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6308 of 1996
 

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

 

AYYUB
YUSUF SABYRIYA & 6 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MA KHARADI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7. 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4. 
None for Respondent(s) : 5, 
MR DF AMIN for Respondent(s) :
5.2.1, 5.2.2,5.2.3  
ABATED for Respondent(s) :
6, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 06/09/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
learned advocate Mr. Kharadi appearing for petitioners. Though rule
is served by direct service to respondent nos.1 to 4, no appearance
is filed on their behalf. Learned advocate Mr. D. F. Amin is
appearing for respondent nos.5/1 to 5/3 and for respondent no.6,
matter is abated. Learned AGP Ms. Sachi Mathur is appearing for
respondent state authority.

2. When
the matter is taken up for hearing, learned advocate Mr. Kharadi
submitted that dispute is between family members which has been now
settled out side the Court, therefore, it is not necessary now to
decide matter on merits, therefore, this petition may be disposed of
by this Court.

3. On
the basis of fact that matter is settled between the parties outside
the Court, present petition is disposed of by this Court without
expressing any opinion on merits. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.

4. However,
learned advocate Mr. Kharadi requests this Court to permit him to
place on record the xerox copy of correspondence between petitioners
and advocate.

5. The
above said permission is granted to place on record correspondence
between petitioner and advocate. Let that correspondence to be taken
on record.

(H.K.RATHOD,
J.)

(ila)

   

Top