Gujarat High Court High Court

Taraben vs State on 24 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Taraben vs State on 24 December, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/13059/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 13059 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9883 of 1992
 

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

TARABEN
D/O HARIRAM HEMRAJ JOSHI & 2 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 9 - Respondent(s)
 

===================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR JITENDRA M PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,
1.2.7,1.2.8 - 2. 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 6.2.1,6.2.3 - 7, 7.2.2, 7.2.3,7.2.4
 
None for Respondent(s) : 2, 6,6.2.2 - 7. 
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R)
for Respondent(s) : 2.2.1, 5, 
MR NP CHAUDHARY for Respondent(s) :
2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 4, 6.2.1, 6.2.3,6.2.4
 
MRTUSHARCHAUDHARY for Respondent(s) : 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5,
2.2.6, 4, 6.2.1, 6.2.3,6.2.4  
SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for
Respondent(s) : 3, 
=====================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 24/12/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 The
present application is filed praying for multi facet reliefs, which
are set out in Para 13, which read as under:

1.1 13(A). To
condone the delay in setting aside the abatement and to set aside the
abatement of the petition.

In
fact, two Civil Applications are required to be filed, one seeking
abatement and another seeking condonation of delay in filing
application of application seeking abatement.

1.2 13(B). To
condone the delay in filing this application for brining the heirs
and legal representatives of deceased petitioner no. 1 and respondent
no. 7 on the record of the case.

This
is again more than one reliefs. An application is required to be
filed for bringing heirs and legal representatives of deceased
petitioner no. 1. Then a Civil Application seeking condonation of
delay therein. Similarly, an application for bringing heirs and
legal representatives of respondent
no. 7 on record. Again a
Civil Application seeking condonation of delay caused therein.
Separate applications are required to be filed for brining heirs and
legal representations on record and for condonation of delay.

2.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta submits that all the three petitioners have
expired. The last one was petitioner no. 1, who expired on 3rd
August 2005, the petitioner no. 2 is reported to have expired before
nine years. So far as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the learned
advocate is not able to trace out as to where the petitioner no. 3
is, and therefore, a request is made that he should, now, be
transposed as respondent.

3.0 All
these prayers cannot be considered in one Civil Application. The
Civil Application is disposed of with a liberty to file separate
Civil Applications for every reliefs sought.

3.1 Rule
is discharged.

[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]

hiren

   

Top