Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/11583/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 11583 of 2010
In
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 255 of 1995
=========================================================
JAITUNBIBI
W/O MUNAVARHUSEIN M NAWAB - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MEENABEN,
WIDOW OF TARACHAND T SHARMA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
VC THOMAS FOR MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI
for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,
1.2.7,1.2.8
MR DP KINARIWALA for Respondent(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.1,1.3.2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 13/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
This
application has been filed under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, for substituted service of respondent No.1/B –
Subhashbhai T.Sharma.
Mr.V.C.Thomas,
learned advocate for Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the
applicant, submits that the respondents are members of the same
family. During the course of service of Notice, it was discovered
that a commercial complex in the name and style of Narayan Complex
has been erected at the original address mentioned in the cause-title
and in spite of best efforts, the whereabouts of respondent No.1/B
could not be ascertained. It is further submitted that it appears
that the said respondent may be trying to evade service of Notice and
as the whereabouts and current address of the said respondent is not
forthcoming from the other respondents as well, the prayers made in
the application may be granted.
Mr.D.P.Kinariwala,
learned advocate for respondent No.1/A has submitted that he is not
in a position to contact his client or obtain necessary instructions
regarding the address of the unserved respondent, therefore, the
Court may pass appropriate orders.
In
view of the submission that the address of respondent No.1/B is not
forthcoming from the other respondents who are members of the same
family and a commercial complex has been constructed at the original
address mentioned in the cause-title and as the whereabouts of the
said respondent could not be ascertained in spite of best efforts,
the prayers made in the application deserve to be granted.
Accordingly,
the application is allowed. The Registry is directed to issue Notice
of Rule upon unserved respondent No.1/B at the addresses mentioned in
Paragraph-2(A) of the application, making it returnable on
29.11.2010.
The
application is disposed of.
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top