Gujarat High Court High Court

Sathvara vs State on 5 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Sathvara vs State on 5 August, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/12188/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12188 of 2009
 

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

 

SATHVARA
KANTIBHAI HARGOVANBHAI & 6 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RJ GOSWAMI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7. 
MR PRANAV DAVE, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. 
MR
HB SINGH for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/08/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

It
is not in dispute that the present petition is against the orders
passed by the Mamlatdar and Dy.Collector under the provisions of
Mamlatdar Courts Act. In view of the decisions of the Bombay High
Court in the case of Babaji Kondaji Mali Vs. Bala Fakira
Mahar, reported in
1938 BLR (Vol.40) Page 104; in
the case of Dalpat Zopdoo Patil Vs. Mahadu Uka,
reported in
1912 BLR (Vol.14) Page 259; and
in the case of Purshottam Janardhan Chaphakar Vs. Mahadu
Pandu Turmalkar, reported
in 1912 BLR (Vol14) Page 947,
against the impugned orders Civil Revision Application under
sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable. Hence,
present petition is not entertained. It will be open for the
petitioners
to file Civil Revision Application against the impugned orders,
which can be considered in accordance with law and on merits. It
will always be open for the petitioners to file an
application for condonation of delay and to contend that the
petitioners
were prosecuting the present Special Civil
Application before this Court and therefore there is delay in filing
the same and the same may be considered considering Sec.14 of the
Limitation Act. With this observation and liberty in favour of the
petitioners to file revision application, the present Special Civil
Application is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No costs.

[
M.R. Shah, J. ]

rafik

   

Top