Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA/263/1984 2/ 2 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 263 of 1984 ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus SAVITABEN V VIBHAKAR & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MD PANDYA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, MR PM THAKKAR for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date : 01/12/2010 ORAL ORDER
learned advocate Mr. MD Pandya on behalf of appellant original
defendant, learned advocate Mr. SM Shah appearing for respondent no.
1 and learned advocate Mr. Dipak Thakkar appearing for respondent
respondent no. 1 Dr. Savitaben V. Vibhakar original plaintiff in
whose favour, Trial Court Second Joint Civil Judge (SD), Rajkot in
Regular Civil Suit no. 73/78 has passed an order and decree and
declared that action of defendant Corporation in matter of
construction of Bus Stand at suit place is held to be illegal and
GSRTC is ordered to demolish or remove construction of Bus Stand in
question and if does not do it, plaintiff shall be at liberty to do
so at cost of defendant Corporation.
aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Second Joint Civil Judge
(SD) Rajkot on 30/4/1981. Against which, Regular Civil Appeal no.
137/81 preferred by GSRTC, which appeal has been dismissed with
costs and judgment and decree under appeal are hereby confirmed and
upheld by Appellate Court on 31/1/1984.
present appeal is preferred by GSRTC. During pendency of present
appeal, learned advocate Mr. SM Shah appearing for respondent no. 1
original plaintiff has made statement before this Court (Coram:
Honourable Mr. Justice R. A. Mehta) that respondent no. 1 original
plaintiff is expired. This fact has been recorded by this Court on
17/7/1985. Therefore, it must be in knowledge of Corporation
Advocate, even though, heirs and legal representative of respondent
no. 1 is not brought on record by Appellant Corporation and more
than twenty five years have passed, till date heirs and legal
representative of respondent no. 1 is not brought on record.
to my opinion, against respondent no. 1, present second appeal is
abated. Therefore, same has been disposed of accordingly. Interim
relief if any granted by this Court, stand vacated.