Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Gujarat vs Savitaben on 20 December, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;
   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

Heard
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
no. 2.

The
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.

The
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.

Therefore,
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.

According
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.

(H.K.RATHOD,
J)

asma

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.104 seconds.