Gujarat High Court High Court

Vidya vs State on 21 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Vidya vs State on 21 January, 2011
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/8802/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8802 of 2010
 

In
 

MISC.
CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION (STAMP) No. 1742 of 2010
 

In
 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 125 of 2009
 

In
 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15926 of 2008
 

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


 

VIDYA
BHARATI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST-WANKANER & 1 -
Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
VM PANCHOLI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
5. 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/01/2011  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

This
Civil Application has been preferred for condonation of delay of 53
days in preferring the proposed Misc. Civil Application for
restoration of Letters Patent Appeal No. 125 of 2009.

2. From
the order dated 4.5.2010, it will be evident that the counsel for the
appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal and, therefore,
the case was disposed of. The order reads as follows :-

“Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants sought for and
permitted to withdraw the Appeal without any liberty. Learned
counsel for the respondents have no objection. It is accordingly
dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.”

3. The main
plea taken is that only the first appellant wanted to withdraw the
appeal, but that cannot be a ground for restoration of a case which
was withdrawn. For the said reason, we are not inclined to entertain
this application. Both the petition for condonation of delay and the
Misc. Civil Application for restoration are dismissed.

[S. J.

MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.]

[AKIL
KURESHI, J.]

sundar/-

   

Top