Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/3238/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 3238 of 2010
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3101 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2927 of 2004
=========================================================
HEIRS
OF DECEASED NANIBAI WD/O NAROTTAM MAKAN - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT, THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF GUJARAT & 1 -
Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BM MANGUKIYA for
Applicant(s) : 1,MS BELA A PRAJAPATI for Applicant(s) : 1,
MS
MANISHA NARSINGHANI, AGP for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s)
: 2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 13/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned Advocate
Mr.Mangukiya for the applicant.
2. RULE.
3. The prayer made in
this application is as under:-
“12. a. Be pleased
to recall the order passed by this Hon’ble Court dated April 1, 2010
in Misc.Civil Application no.3101 of 2009 in Special Civil
Application no.2927 of 2004 and restore the matter on file;”
3.1 Annexure-A to this
application is the judgment and order passed by this Court (Coram:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.A.Mehta, as he then was) in Special Civil
Application No.2927 of 2004 dated 12.08.2009. Annexure-B is the
order passed in Misc.Civil Application No.3101 of 2009 dated
29.01.2010, which reads as under:-
“The matter has
been called out thrice. Learned Advocate for the applicant is absent
at all the three calls. Hence rejected for want of prosecution.”
4. Learned Advocate for
the applicant invited attention of the Court to the averments made in
para-9 of the application, which reads as under:-
“9. The applicant
submits that advocate of the petitioner-applicant was under the
impression that the matter was listed before this Hon’ble Court at
5.00 PM and not at 4.00 PM. It was a wrong impression on the part of
the advocate of the applicant; in the Board, it was correctly
mentioned and recorded that the matter was listed at 4.00 PM. But,
due to the bonafide mistake of the advocate of the applicant, the
advocate was under the impression that the matter would be called at
5.00 PM since this Hon’ble Court was sitting in the Division Bench.
However, at the time when the aforesaid matter was called out before
this Hon’ble Court at 4.00 PM on that day, the advocate of the
applicant was actually arguing before another Hon’ble Court and
therefore, advocate of the applicant-petitioner could not remain
present before this Hon’ble court at the time when the matter was
called out and therefore, said matter is again dismissed for
default.”
5. In view of the
averments made in para-9 above, the application is allowed. Rule is
made absolute. No costs.
Registry is directed to
notify Misc.Civil Application No.3101 of 2009 on 14.12.2010.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top