Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/11533/2009 1/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11533 of 2009
In
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 443 of 2009
=========================================================
UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANJIBHAI
@ BABUBHAI BHIMABHAI SOLANKI, L.R.OF BAI & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NAVNIT M TAILOR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6, 8,
-
for Respondent(s) :
7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 20/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Tailor appearing for the applicant.
Present
application is taken out under Section-5 of the Limitation Act
seeking condonation of delay of 46 days caused in filing the First
Appeal (Stamp) No.443 of 2009.
The
cause list shows that respondent nos.1 to 6 and 8 are served with the
process of the Court. The cause list also shows that the process has
not been served qua respondent no.7.
Learned
advocate Mr. Tailor appearing for the applicant has submitted that
the said respondent no.7 has expired. He further submitted that the
applicant desires to delete respondent no.7 from the present
proceedings in as much as the said respondent no.7 driver of the
vehicle will not be affected even if any order in favour of the
applicant is passed. Since the owner of the vehicle is party
respondent to the proceedings, learned advocate Mr. Tailor seeks
permission to delete respondent no.7 from the present proceedings.
The permission as prayed for is granted. The applicant is permitted
to delete respondent no.7 from the present proceedings. The
applicant shall carry out the amendment forthwith.
In
view of the averments made in para-1 of the application, the
applicant has made out sufficient cause to condone delay and has
given satisfactory explanation for the same. The relief prayed for
in para-3(b) deserves to be granted and accordingly the same is
granted. The delay of 46 days caused in filing the appeal is
condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ila)
Top