Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/212720/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 2127 of 2010
In
APPEAL
FROM ORDER-STAMP NUMBER No. 39 of 2010
With
APPEAL
FROM ORDER-STAMP NUMBER No. 39 of 2010
=========================================================
JAYNABEN
D/O DAMODARDAS MOHANLAL SHAH AND W/O CHINUBHAI SHAH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MAHENDRAKUMAR
DAMODARDAS SHAH & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SURYANARAYAN FOR MR DHAVAL SHAH
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PRASHANT DESAI SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR KAUSHAL
D PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT for
Respondent(s) : 5 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 11/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
It
is shocking that a party by change of advocate ventures to file an
Appeal from Order ‘ second time’ after having earlier Appeal
from Order against the very same order disposed of by this Court
(Coram: K.A. Puj, J.) by order dated 2.11.2009 wherein it is
specifically recorded that:
Looking
to the issue involved in the suit as well as this Appeal from Order,
the Trial Court is hereby directed to hear and dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible preferably within period of one year from
the date of receiving copy of writ or certified copy of this order,
whichever is earlier .
Earlier
it was learned advocate Mr. Kirit J Mackwan who appeared for the
appellant and now it is learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah who has
filed the Appeal from Order with this Civil Application for
condonation of delay. First paragraph of this Civil Application reads
as under:
The
Applicant-original Appellant has preferred the captioned Appeal from
Order being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order
dated 31st
July
2009 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ) passed by
the learned 9th
Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Surat below application Exh.5 in Special Civil
Suit No.125 of 2009 on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the
appeal .
Learned
advocate Mr. Surya Narayan appearing for Mr. Dhaval Shah for the
applicant submitted that in earlier Appeal from Order all the grounds
on which the order could have been challenged were not pleaded.
Besides he submitted that there is a ‘fraud’, and when there is a
‘fraud’, filing the Appeal from Order second time is not barred.
This
Court finds no substance in any of the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the applicant, hence this Civil Application is
dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
As
the Civil Application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the
Appeal from Order (Stamp) No.39 of 2010 is not entertained.
(Ravi
R. Tripathi, J.)
…
(karan)
Top