Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2724/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 2724 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 678 of 2008
=========================================================
HINABEN
JITUBHAI PATEL & 4 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 8 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS PATEL,LD.ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF MR.CHIRAG PATEL
for
Applicants.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Opponent(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) : 2 - 3.
MR SHIRISH JOSHI for Opponent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The draft amendment tendered today
by Mr.B.S Patel, learned advocate for the applicants, is allowed.
Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.
By way of present petition, the
applicants have prayed for recalling the order dated 01st
September 2010 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.678 of 2010 and restoring the matter to file.
Heard learned counsel for the
respective parties.
Having considered the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, averments
made in the application and the documentary evidence produced on
record, it transpires that the applicant has not taken the notice
dated 10th March 2010 issued by this Court, which was
served upon them, seriously and whiled away the time. It is
pertinent to note that the applicants did not make any alternative
arrangement to conduct the matter and remained indolent.
It
is required to be noted that there is general allegation that the
judiciary is moving in a sluggish track. There is a hue and cry that
matter is not being decided expeditiously and it takes years to
decide a matter. However, the fact remains that most of the times,
the courts are helpless and are required to adjourn the matters from
time to time wasting time of administration as well as the Court.
Therefore, when there is a total lethargy on the part of the
parties, and they are not vigilant to keep track of the matter, such
matter does not deserve to be entertained.
In
the premises aforesaid, I am of the view that the applicants were
not vigilant about the matter and this is not a deserving case to
recall and restore the matter to file. Hence the application is
rejected.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top