Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Sureshbhai on 16 March, 2010

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

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/1727/2010	 2/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1727 of 2010
 

In


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2490 of 2009
 

In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2652 of 2009
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SURESHBHAI
K PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
VS PATHAK, AGP for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MRS SANGEETA N PAHWA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

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 no.1.

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.2652 of 2009.

Learned
advocate Ms. Vinita Vinayak with learned advocate Mrs. Sangita Pahwa
have appeared on advance notice for respondent no.1 and have stated
that the said respondent has no objection if the delay in preferring
the Misc. Civil Application is condoned.

So
far as respondent no.2 is concerned, it is stated by learned AGP Ms.
V. S. Pathak that as per details placed on record, by the concerned
officer, in the application for review, respondent no.2 establishment
has been closed down.

Subject
to the objections, if any, from the side of respondent no.2, the
delay caused in preferring the application is condoned in view of the
consent given by learned advocate for respondent no.1.

If
this Court entertains application for review, after hearing the
application, then in that event it would be open to respondent no.2
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