Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4579/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4579 of 2010
=====================================
SMT
ANSOYABEN NANDALAL CHOKSI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NAVNITLAL
RATANLAL PARIKH - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 - 2.
None for Respondent(s)
: 1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 13/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 It
is really worth appreciating the patience of the parties who are
before this Court contending that in a Rent Suit No. 207 of 1990
there is still enough time and scope of to go on litigating on
framing of certain issues and deletion of certain sentences in a
deposition filed on affidavit.
2.0 The
learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioners, with all vehemence
at his command, argued that the Court below has committed a grave
error, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice by allowing
application exh. 191 and rejecting application exh. 194.
2.1 When
it is put to the learned advocate for the petitioners, as to how come
a common petition is filed for challenging two orders dated 30th
January 2010, he submitted that he is not seeking permission to file
another petition for challenging the order passed below application
exh. 194. It is really good of the learned advocate for the
petitioners that he has decided not to burden this Court by filing
yet another petition.
3.0 The
contentions, which are raised, are so flimsy and frivolous that they
are not worth dealing with in detail. The only smell which comes out
of every submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioners
is a deliberate and calculated attempt on the part of the petitioners
to delay the proceedings of Rent Suit No. 207 of 1990.
3.1 This
Court is clear on the point that it will not like to be a party to
that calculated attempt on the part of the petitioners to delay the
proceedings of Rent Suit No. 207 of 1990. Hence, this
petition is dismissed. It is dismissed with a token cost of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only), a deposit of which shall be
the condition precedent for taking up any further proceedings in the
matter.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top