Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/274/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 274 of 2011
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 13596 of 2010
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9288 of 2010
=========================================================
BHIKHABHAI
JESINGBHAI RATHOD - Applicant(s)
Versus
PASHCHIM
GUJARAT VIJ CO LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NAYAN D PAREKH for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MS LILU K BHAYA for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 14/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Nayan Parekh for the petitioner and learned
advocate Ms.Lilu Bhaya for the respondent.
2. The
following order was passed by this Court in Civil Application
No.13596 of 2010 on 14.12.2010 which reads as under:
“Remedy
is available to the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if the
order passed by the court below is not complied with. In view of the
above observation, this application stands disposed of. Notice is
discharged.
Office
to list main Special Civil Application on board on 16.12.2010.”
3.
From the plain reading of this order, the petitioner (original
respondent in Special Civil Application No.9288 of 2010) can take
appropriate steps for any order passed by the trial court or the
appropriate court. But without availing the remedy, the petitioner by
making hue and cry that the respondent authority is not giving
electric connection to the petitioner though the petitioner has
deposited the amount. It is submitted by learned advocate Ms.Lilu
Bhaya for the respondent that the petitioner has already withdrawn
the Special Civil Application No.9288 of 2010 on 16.12.2010 and
thereafter the petitioner has filed Second Appeal before this Court
and the same is listed for hearing on 17.2.2011.
4.
It transpires from the order that this Court has not passed the order
for depositing the amount or for restoring the electric connection
and therefore this application is misconceived and requires to be
rejected. Hence the application is summarily rejected with no order
as to costs.
(
M.D. SHAH, J. )
syed/
Top