Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/673/2011 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 673 of 2011
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 13329 of 2009
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR RESTORATION No. 3276 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Sd/-
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
NO
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
=========================================
KARSAN
NARASIBHAI VAJA
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
MK VAKHARIA for
Appellant
MR NJ SHAH, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Respondent Nos. 2 and
4
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 21/07/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. Heard
learned counsel Mr. Mehul Vakharia for the appellant, Mr. H.S.
Munshaw for respondent Nos.2 and 4 and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. N.J. Shah for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
2. This
appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 9.7.2010 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.13329 of 2009 in
Misc. Civil Application No.3276 of 2009 in Special Civil Application
No.6070 of 1995.
3. Since
the writ petitions of similarly situated persons have been allowed by
this Court by order dated 9.3.2006, being Special Civil Application
No.692 of 2002 along with other connected matters, according to the
learned counsel for the appellant, his case is identical and
therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the opinion that harsh view has been taken by the learned
Single Judge in dismissing the restoration application. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the restoration
application cannot be maintained.
4. In the
result, this Appeal succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 9.7.2010
passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The cause shown in
support of the restoration application is sufficient. Delay in filing
the restoration application is condoned. Restoration application
shall be decided by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law
as expeditiously as possible subject to Lordship’s convenience.
Sd/-
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.)
Sd/-
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top