Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
State vs Hiraben on 16 June, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/5486/1993	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5486 of 1993
 

In
 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No.2447 of 1993
 

 


 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

HIRABEN
WD/O K. M. PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
JIRGA JHAVERI AGP for Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
1, 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,
1.2.5,1.2.6 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 16/06/2010  
ORAL ORDER

The
cause list shows that the CA No.2447 of 1993 (in which present CA
No.5486 of 1993 has been preferred) is already disposed of as
rejected.

It
deserves to be noted that the applicant of present application appear
to have filed FA (Stamp) No.7180 of 1993. It is claimed that during
the pendency of the appeal, the opponent No.1 expired. Hence, the
applicant was required to file application impleading the heirs and
legal representatives of the deceased opponent. The applicant did
file the application, but after the expiry of period of limitation.
Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay was required to
be filed and it was filed. The said application seeking condonation
of delay has been registered as CA No.5486 of 1993 i.e. present
application.

Since
1993, this application has remained pending. In the meanwhile, CA
No.2447 of 1993 in which present application has been preferred, has
already been dismissed as per the remark in the today’s cause list.
Hence, this application does not survive and has become infructuous.

Even
otherwise, from the cause title of the application, it appears that
so far as the FA is concerned, the value for the purpose of
jurisdiction is assessed at Rs.1010/-. Thus, considering the award
amount challenged in the appeal, the appeal does not deserve to be
entertained in view of smallness of the amount.

That
apart, since the parent application being CA No.2447 of 1993 has been
dismissed, present application does not survive. Hence, the
application is dismissed as infructuous.

[K.M.Thaker,
J.]

kdc

   

Top


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.213 seconds.