Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10900/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10900 of 2010
=====================================
POOJA
DEVELOPERS THROUGH PARTNER AND POA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MANISHA
NARSINGHANI, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 5.
MR
SHIRISH JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
3,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 30/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Heard
learned advocate Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioner. Learned
advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to
page No. 47/50, it is marked as ‘exh. 33’. It is also mentioned
there, ‘Civil Misc. Application No. 160 of 2000’.
1.1 The
learned advocate then invited attention of the Court to page No.
47/52, it is marked as ‘exh. 35’. It is also mentioned there ‘Civil
Misc. Application No. 160 of 2000’.
1.2 The
learned advocate then invited attention of the Court to page No.
47/53, it is marked as ‘exh. 30’. It is also mentioned there ‘Civil
Misc. Application No. 160 of 2000’. When it is inquired from the
learned advocate, as to in which proceedings, this Civil Misc.
Application is filed, the learned advocate submitted that she will
have to inquire.
1.3 The
learned advocate then invited attention of the Court to page No.
47/59, which is an application filed in Special Civil Suit
No. 77
of 2000. In the subject matter, it is mentioned that ‘as per
Compromise Pursises being exh. nos. 32, 35 and 37, an order be
passed’. Attention of the learned advocate was invited as to where
is exh. 37, the learned advocate is not able to find out the same.
1.4 The
learned advocate then invited attention of the Court to the order
passed on 2nd October 2007. It is on page Nos. 47/61 to
47/62. There it is mentioned that, ‘application read and as
mentioned in the application, as per Compromise Pursises being exh.
nos. 32, 35 and 37 are also read. The parties have agreed according
to these three Compromises’. It was then inquired as to why there
are three Compromises, the learned advocate is not able to give any
satisfactory reply.
2.0 In
view of the fact that the learned advocate is not able to explain the
documents filed in the petition, the petition is dismissed with
liberty to file a fresh petition after putting the house in order.
Notice is discharged.
3.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Joshi for respondent no. 3 submitted that the present
petition is filed against an interim order passed by the Revisional
Authorities.
3.1 As
the Court has not examined the merits of the matter, for the present,
this submission is not taken into consideration.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top