Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/4955/1996 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4955 of 1996
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2374 of 1996
=========================================================
BHARATBHAI
RAMANLAL THAKKAR & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NAVINCHANDRA
K UPADHYAY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAJNI H MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1
- 3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 22/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Present
application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act has been taken out
seeking condonation of delay of 19 (nineteen) days in filing the
First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 17/1/1996 passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in MACP No.1858 of
1992.
By
order dated 7/10/1996, the Court has admitted the Civil Application
by issuing Rule in the Civil Application. Since then the application
has not been prosecuted further. The notice of the process issued by
the Court has remained unserved and said notice is not received back
since 1996. Neither the applicant nor the opponents have thereafter
taken steps to carry the application and/or the appeal further and to
prosecute the same. The opponents have remained unserved since last
14 years. It is obvious that by now the award must have been
executed.
Learned
advocate Mr. S. B. Parikh for Mr. Rajni Mehta, learned advocate
appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had
deposited the amount before the Trial Court at the material point of
time. In absence of any directions during last 14 years, the amount
must have been paid/disbursed to the claimants. Hence any fruitful
purpose will not be served even if the application for condonation of
delay is granted.
Thus,
in view of the fact that for last 14 years, the opponents have not
been served with the process of the Court, present application fails
for non prosecution and accordingly it is dismissed for non
prosecution. Rule is discharged accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ila)
Top