Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2569/2010 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 2569 of 2010
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5486 of 2009
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8137 of 2008
=========================================================
RAKESH
AMARSINH DAMIR - Applicant(s)
Versus
BHARTI
RAKESH DAMIR - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HORMAZ B SHETHNA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
PARTY-IN-PERSON for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 18/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Heard Mr. Homraz B. Shethna, learned advocate for the applicant and
respondent wife (who appears as party-in-person).
2.
With regard to the earlier application, made by the advocate of the
applicant, by which certain details/documents were requested for it
has been submitted today by Mr. Shethna, learned advocate for the
applicant that the applicant/applicant’s advocate has received reply
to the said application and two options have been offered for further
course of action with regard to the said application. He has also
submitted that though the reply as aforesaid has been received by
applicant/applicant’s advocate, having regard to the nature and scope
of present/main application and in the interest of justice the
applicant and the applicant’s advocate are not inclined to pursue the
said application any further and do not intend to adopt either of the
course suggested in the above referred reply dated 26.1.2011
(received on 3.2.2011) so as to bring about final decision in the
present/main application. It is also clarified by the learned
advocate for the applicant that the applicant and the applicant’s
advocate do not intend to press in service the said separate
application for detail/documents and do not want to rely on the
details/documents for which request was made in the said earlier
application and instead would prefer to rely upon the record of
present application and the documents/affidavit which are presently
obtaining on the record of this/main application and that therefore
the said earlier application and the said proceedings may be treated
as closed or waived and instead the application may be decided on its
own merits on the basis of the material available on record of
present application.
3.
The said submission is not opposed by the respondent wife (who
appears as party-in-person).
4.
Hence, in view of the submission and the stipulation made by the
learned advocate for the applicant the said earlier application
seeking certain details/documents is treated as having been waived
and i.e. not persued.
5.
Having regard to the fact that today it is already 5.10 p.m. when the
application is taken up for hearing and it is already passed court
hours it would not be feasible to undertake further hearing of the
application, hence, the hearing of the application is required to be
adjourned.
6.
In view of the joint request by the parties further hearing of the
application is adjourned to 23.2.2011 at 4.45 p.m.
7.
Since main petitions being SCA No. 8137 of 2008, SCA No.10866 of 2008
as well as CA No.5486 of 2009 are pending before the Court taking up
the said petitions and civil application as per the regular roster,
it is clarified that pendency of present application does not have
any connection or bearing with regard to the said two petitions or
application.
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top