Gujarat High Court High Court

Co-Operative vs Parasram on 21 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Co-Operative vs Parasram on 21 January, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/11385/2009	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR BRINGING HEIRS No. 11385 of 2009
 

In


 

 


 

 

 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6708 of 1989
 

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

 

CO-OPERATIVE
BANK OF AHMEDABAD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PARASRAM
S MOHITE & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MB GANDHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MR CHINMAY M GANDHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE
UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR
AK CLERK for Respondent(s) : 2.2.1  
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS for
Respondent(s) : 2.2.2
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/01/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

The
present application has been preferred by the applicant for joining
legal heirs of respondent No.2, Dr. Asitkumar Damubhai Shukla, who
has expired pending the petition.

It
appears that in the present application, the applicant has stated
that there are two legal representatives of the deceased; (1) Smt.
Kumudben Asitkumar Shukla and (2) Mr.Aniket Asitkumar Shukla. As
stated by Mr.Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the legal heir
Aniket Asitkumar Shukla Opponent No.2/2, Smt. Kumudben
Asitkumar Shukla, who is described as Opponent No.2/1, has expired
since last about 9 to 10 years. The said statement is getting
support from the report of the bailiff dated 26.11.2009, wherein it
has been stated that as Opponent No.2/1 has expired long back, the
notice is not served and the papers are returned back as ‘unserved’.

Mr.Vyas,
learned Counsel appearing for the legal heir also stated that there
is no property inherited by the legal heir present Opponent
No.2/1 from the deceased and, in any case, he is the only legal heir
of Dr. Asitkumar Damubhai Shukla.

Under
these circumstances, when there is only one legal heir of the
original respondent No.2, who is described in the present
application as Opponent No.2/2 Aniket Asitkumar Shukla, the
applicant is permitted to join him as the legal heir of original
respondent No.2 in the original Special Civil Application No.6708 of
1989 as party respondent and Mr.Vyas has appeared for him.

Hence,
subject to the aforesaid observations, the application is allowed to
the aforesaid extent.

21.1.2010
(Jayant Patel, J.)

vinod

   

Top