Gujarat High Court High Court

Gitanshu vs Rule on 21 October, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Gitanshu vs Rule on 21 October, 2010
Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/1963/2010	 2/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1963 of 2010
 

With


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2771 of 2010
 

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

GITANSHU
DHIRAJLAL PARMAR - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

PANCHAL
RAJESHKUMAR SHIVABHAI & 6 - Opponent(s)
 

====================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR
PREMAL R JOSHI for Applicant(s) : 1,1.2.1  
RULE UNSERVED for
Opponent(s) : 1, 7, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) : 2, 
MR
GC MAZMUDAR for Opponent(s) : 3, 
MR HG MAZMUDAR for Opponent(s) :
3, 
MR MP PRAJAPATI for Opponent(s) : 4,
6, 
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/10/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Rule.

Shri G.C.Mazmudar, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf
of respondent No.2. Shri Premal Joshi, waives service of Rule on
behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. None appears for respondent No.1.
With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, Rule is
fixed forthwith.

2. The
claimants of two claim petitions instituted at two different Courts
at two different places have approached this Court under Section 24
of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking transfer of the other
petition to the Court where the claimant is residing. The petitioner
of Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1963 of 2010 happened to be
the claimant in M.A.C.P No.196 of 2005 instituted at Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal at Jamnagar as her husband died in a vehicular
accident when she came to know that there is one more MACP filed in
respect of the said deceased by his earlier wife being MACP No.623 of
2005 at Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad(Rural). She filed
the present application i.e. Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1963
of 2010 seeking transfer of the said MACP No.623 of 2005, as the
Insurance Company there brought these facts to the notice of the
Tribunal, which in turn stayed the proceedings at Jamnagar. The Court
issued notice in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. no.1963 of 2010
and in response to the notice respondent No.4 also preferred
application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2771 of 2010
seeking transfer of MACP No.1963 of 2005 from the Tribunal at
Jamnagar to the Tribunal at Ahmedabad claiming that she is the
earlier wife of the deceased and she would be put to hardship if the
prayer made in the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1963 of 2010
is accepted. She submitted that the MACP No.1963 of 2005 be
transferred to Ahmedabad. Learned advocate for the claimants wives
are widows, who put forward their submission with respect to the
balance of convenience in attending the Court but there is a general
consensus among all the learned advocates that the claim petitions
are to be tried by the same Court so as to maintain consistency of
approach.

3. Looking
to the hardship pleaded by the claimant of MACP No.196 of 2005, who
has a small child to fend for, I am of the view that it would be in
the interest of justice if the prayers in Miscellaneous Civil
Application No. 1963 of 2010 are granted for transferring the MACP
No.623 of 2005 from Ahmedabad to Jamnagar as the cases are that of
2005. It is ordered that the MACP No.623 of 2005 be transferred to
Jamnagar and there it will be given a fresh number and both the cases
be decided expeditiously and they be heard by the same Judge. The
applications are thus disposed of. Rule is made absolute in
Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1963 of 2010 and Rule is
discharged in 2771 of 2010. Direct service is permitted.

(S.R.Brahmbhatt,
J.)

sudhir

   

Top