Gujarat High Court High Court

Sanatbhai vs Munkunvarben on 14 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Sanatbhai vs Munkunvarben on 14 February, 2011
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

AO/172/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 172 of 2010
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6280 of 2010
 

In
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 172 of 2010
 

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

 

SANATBHAI
VITHALBHAI RAITHATHA - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

MUNKUNVARBEN
CHUNILAL NANDHA & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PRAVIN GONDALIYA for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
HARESH H PATEL for Respondent(s) : 2, 
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 3,5 - 7. 
MR VIMAL M PATEL for Respondent(s) :
4, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 14/02/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

By
way of present Appeal From Order, the appellant has inter alia
prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 12th
March 2010 passed by the 4th Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Rajkot, below application Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit
No.150 of 2009.

Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.

Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the
respective parties, contentions raised in the Appeal From Order and
on perusal of the impugned order, it is hereby ordered that if an
application is moved by the appellant before the trial Court for
expediting the suit proceedings, the trial Court will consider the
same and will dispose of the suit proceedings as expeditiously as
possible. The Appeal From Order stands disposed of
accordingly. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.

It
is clarified that the observations made by the trial Court while
passing the impugned order are tentative in nature and, therefore,
the same will not come in the way of the appellant while deciding
the suit. It is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the matter.

(K.S.

Jhaveri, J)

Aakar

   

Top