Gujarat High Court High Court

Hitesh vs Union on 26 June, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Hitesh vs Union on 26 June, 2008
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
  
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 

SCA/6626/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6626 of 2008
 

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

 

HITESH
VALLABHBHAI PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

UNION
BANK OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PUSHPADATTA VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
MS NALINI S LODHA for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MS
KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/06/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

On
18.6.2008 learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioners sought time to
take instructions in the matter. At his request, the matter was
adjourned to 26/6/2008 i.e. today. The factum of no instruction
assumes importance in view of the peculiar facts of this particular
case. In this case, this Court by order dated 25.4.2008 granted the
interim relief in favour of the petitioners and status quo qua
possession and title of the property in question was granted, but
that was on condition that the petitioners deposit the amount of
Rs.1,92,110/- on or before 2.5.2008 without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of the present petition.

2. Learned
advocate Ms.Nalini Lodha appearing for the bank informed the Court
that cheques deposited by the petitioners were not honoured. It is
in this light, learned advocate Mr.Vyas was granted time to take
instructions in the matter.

3. Learned
advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioners places on record a copy of
letter dated 19.6.2008 which was sent by Registered Post A.D., which
is received by the petitioners on 20.6.2008, but still the
petitioners have not taken care to respond to the learned advocate.
That being so, learned advocate for the petitioners pleads ‘ no
instructions’. The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Notice is discharged. Interim Relief granted earlier is vacated.

(Ravi
R.Tripathi,J)

pathan