Renukaben vs Surajsinh on 25 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Renukaben vs Surajsinh on 25 January, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *