Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/312/1991 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 312 of 1991
=========================================
RENUKABEN
WD/O PRAVINCHANDRA CHUNILAL KADIYA & 4 - Appellant(s)
Versus
SURAJSINH
SHRIRAMSINH JATT (DRIVER) & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR
R.K.MANSURI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Appellant(s) : 4 -
5.
RULE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for
Defendant(s) : 2,
MR PF MAKWANA for Defendant(s) : 3,
MR NAGESH
C SOOD for Defendant(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 25/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
First Appeal is of the year 1991. Appellant Nos.4 and 5 are reported
to have expired, whose heirs are already on record as appellant Nos.1
to 3. It is also reported that respondent No.2 – original
owner has also expired and no steps are taken by the appellants to
bring the heirs of respondent No.2 – original owner on record,
despite sufficient time having been granted. Hence, present Appeal
is dismissed as having been abated so far as respondent No.2 –
original owner is concerned. Respondent No.1 is reported to be
unserved. No steps are taken to serve the unserved respondent No.1.
Hence, present Appeal is dismissed as having been abated so far as
original respondent No.1 is concerned. Consequently, when the Appeal
qua respondent No.2 is
dismissed as having been abated, there cannot be any liability of
respondent No.3 – insurance company hence, the present
application deserves to be dismissed so far as respondent No.3 is
concerned. If any application is submitted by the appellants to set
aside the abatement qua respondent
No.2 – original owner
and in case it is granted, it will be open for the appellants to
request to revive/restore the main appeal qua respondent
No.3, which shall be considered in accordance with law on merits.
2. With
this, present First Appeal is dismissed as having been abated so far
as respondent No.2 is concerned and consequently dismissed against
respondent No.3. No costs.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top
