Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajeshwari vs Iqbal on 8 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rajeshwari vs Iqbal on 8 March, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/1197/1992	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1197 of 1992
 

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

 

RAJESHWARI
UDAYAN KAPADIA & 4 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

IQBAL
ALIAS ABDULRAHIM & 2 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
MV CHOKSHY for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 5. 
DELETED for Opponent(s) : 1, 
None for
Opponent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/03/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Present
Miscellaneous Application No.1197/1992 is preferred with a request
to set aside order dismissing First Appeal No.42/1983 and for
restoration of said appeal. In para-2 of the application, it has
been stated that appeal came to be dismissed for non prosecution on
05.08.1992 due to absence of the appellant’s advocate at the time
when appeal was taken-up for hearing.

The
averments in para-2 of the application and the cause list what Court
show that appeal has been dismissed on 05.08.1992. However, without
annexing the order it is stated in para-2 of the application that
appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution (advocate’s
absence).

The
cause list also shows that the respondent No.1 has been deleted. It
is pertinent to note that after the order dated 05.08.1992, the
applicant seems to have filed present application for restoration on
25.08.1992. However, since/after 01.09.1992 no steps seem to have
been taken and the application has virtually remained dormant. It
appears no one from the applicant’s side is interested in
prosecuting the matter.

Today,
also the learned advocate for the applicant has not remained present
even in second call. Hence, present application of restoration is
dismissed for non-prosecution.

(K.M.THAKER,
J.)

..mitesh..

   

Top