Gujarat High Court High Court

Chaturbhai vs Bharuch on 14 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Chaturbhai vs Bharuch on 14 December, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SA/162/1996	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SECOND
APPEAL No. 162 of 1996
 

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

 

CHATURBHAI
VARADHBHAI PATEL ALIAS RAJESHBHAI V PATEL - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

BHARUCH
DISTRICT CENTRAL CO.OPBANK LTD. & 2 - Defendant(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
NOTICE
NOT RECD BACK for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR BS PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, 
MRS RANJAN
B PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, 
MS SACHI MATUR AGP for Defendant(s)
: 2 - 3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/12/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Notice
not received back for appellant Chaturbhai Varadbhai Patel @
Rajeshbhai Varadbhai Patel, residing at Chopadvav, Taluka. Sagbhara,
District Bharuch. Heard learned advocate Mr. BS Patel appearing for
respondent no. 1 and learned AGP Ms. Sachi Mathur is appearing for
respondent no. 2 and 3.

The
regular Civil Suit no. 449/88 was preferred by present appellant,
which has been decreed in favour of present appellant. Therefore,
appeal was preferred by defendant, which was allowed by order dated
4/5/1996 and suit was decreed on 28/2/1995. This being an old
matter remained pending before this Court for more than fourteen
years. The substantial question of law is involved as framed by this
Court whether in facts of present case, Lower Appellate Court was
right in law in coming to conclusion that suit filed by plaintiff is
barred under section 112 of Co-operative Societies Act?

In
light of this back ground, considering being an old matter, no
interest has been shown by appellant to engaged any other advocate
though more than fourteen years have passed. The present matter is
dismissed in default. However, it is made clear by this Court that
in case if appellant is having any interest in present matter or
cause of action is still survive then it is open for appellant to
file necessary application for recalling present order for
restoration of second appeal.

(H.K.RATHOD,
J)

asma

   

Top