Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1726/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 1726 of 2010
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2492 of 2009
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 64 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ANILBHAI
NATWARLAL DARJI & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
JIRGA JHAVERI, AGP for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS SANGEETA N PAHWA for Respondent(s) : 1 -
6.
- for Respondent(s) : 7 -
8.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 16/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Rule.
Learned advocate Ms. Vinita Vinayak appearing on behalf of learned
advocate Mrs. Sangita Pahwa waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6.
Present
Civil Application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act has been
taken out seeking condonation of delay of 128 days in preferring the
Misc. Civil Application with a request to review/recall or modify an
earlier order dated 2/5/2009 passed in Special Civil Application
No.64 of 2009.
Learned
advocate Ms. Vinita Vinayak with learned advocate Mrs. Sangita Pahwa
have appeared on advance notice for respondent nos.1 to 6 and have
stated that the said respondents have no objection if the delay in
preferring the Misc. Civil Application is condoned.
So
far as respondent nos.7 and 8 are concerned, it is stated by learned
AGP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri that as per details placed on record by the
concerned officer in the application for review, the respondent no.7
establishment has been closed down and respondent no.8 establishment
is transferred/shifted to West Bengal and the address of respondent
no.8 establishment of West Bengal is not available with the office of
the Government Pleader.
Subject
to the objections, if any, from the side of respondent no.7 and/or
respondent no.8, the delay caused in preferring the application is
condoned in view of the consent given by learned advocate for
respondent nos.1 to 6.
If
this Court entertains application for review, after hearing the
application, then in that event it would be open to the respondent
no.7 and/or respondent no.8 to raise objections against the review
application on the ground that the application should not be
entertained in view of the delay caused in preferring the
application.
With
the said clarification, the relief prayed for in para-4(a) to condone
delay of 128 days is granted. Rule is made absolute in terms of
para-4(a). The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ila)
Top