Gujarat High Court High Court

Dhengabhai vs Lakhubhai on 7 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Dhengabhai vs Lakhubhai on 7 April, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/1561/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1561 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2892 of
2009 
 
=========================================================


 

DHENGABHAI
DUNGARABHAI RATHOD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

LAKHUBHAI
DAHYABHAI (GJ-7-T/6303) & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MRHARSHITSTOLIA
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
 

MRPARTHSTOLIA
for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1, 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MS KARUNA V
RAHEVAR for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 07/04/2010  
ORAL ORDER

In
present application, an affidavit in support of the application
appears to have been made on 29th June, 2009. In the
prayer clause 8(B), the details regarding the number of days by which
the appeal has been delayed was left blank, when typed. The said
blank seems to have been filled in subsequently (hand-writing) and
some overwriting is also visible. It appears that originally the
blank was filled in by writing in black ink figure of 169 and on that
basis, the application appears to have been filed. After the
application was presented, the office appears to have calculated the
days by which the application was delayed, which is determined by
office as delays of 243 days. The said figure of 243 days is inserted
in para 8(B) subsequently i.e. after the affidavit is made and after
the application was filed in the registry. Differently put, the
correction is made unauthorizedly in Court’s record without taking
Court’s permission. This will amount to tempering with Court’s
record.

When
the learned counsel for the applicant was questioned about this
aspect by the Court, Mr. Tolia, learned advocate, tendered
unconditional apology and requested for permission to withdraw the
application.

The
application stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.

[K.M.Thaker,
J.]

kdc

   

Top