Gujarat High Court High Court

Rameshkumar vs Chandubhai on 5 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rameshkumar vs Chandubhai on 5 April, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/1144/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1144 of 2010
 

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

RAMESHKUMAR
DEVJIBHAI GHAVA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

CHANDUBHAI
ARJANBHAI KOTHIYA - Respondent(s)
 

===================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR SHITAL R PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=====================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 05/04/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
Mr. Shital Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners. The
petitioners are the original defendants in the Special Civil Suit No.
60 of 2001. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that
the plaintiff respondent herein did not proceed with the suit
until the Court below dismissed the same in 2003. After expiry of
more than 03 years, the respondent plaintiff filed a Civil Misc.
Application No. 51 of 2006 seeking condonation of delay, which is
allowed and delay is condoned by the learned 2nd
additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal by order dated 26th
August 2009.

2. The
learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the respondent
plaintiff is out to harass the petitioners original defendants
that is why, he did not proceed with the suit of 2001 until the same
was dismissed in the year 2003. Even after dismissal
in the year
2003, he could have approached the Court and
he could have
proceeded with the matter, however, for the reasons best known to the
respondent plaintiff, he waited for more than 03 years and
thereafter, filed an application for condonation of delay.

3. The
matter requires consideration.

4. Rule.

5. Ad-interim
relief in terms of Para 7(B). Direct service is
permitted.

[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]

hiren

   

Top