Gujarat High Court High Court

========================================= vs None For on 15 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
========================================= vs None For on 15 April, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3620/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3620 of 2010
 

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

RAJ
PLASTIC
 

Versus
 

DEVAYATBHAI
MOTIBHAI DHANDHAL & 1
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR VISHWAS S DAVE for
Petitioner 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 15/04/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Mr.Vishwas
S. Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to move an
appropriate application before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bhavnagar for restoration of Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1041
of 2000 which was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar on 14th June,
2006 by exercising power under Order 7, Rule 11(C) of the Civil
Procedure Code as the petitioner has not paid the Court Fees.
Permission as prayed for is granted.

Mr.Dave
has submitted that the petitioner has no knowledge about the payment
of the Court Fees. He has further submitted that the petitioner was
neither given an opportunity of hearing nor was served with the
notice of non-payment of the Court Fees. Though the petitioner has
made applications on 30th March, 2009 and 1st
September, 2009, no order is passed on the said applications.

It
appears that the said applications are not in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. If the petitioner wants to
get the Motor Accident Claims Petition restored, he has to move the
appropriate application along with the application for condonation
of delay and on considering the facts of the case, the trial Court
has to condone the delay and take up the main petition. Since this
procedure is not taken by the petitioner, the petitioner is hereby
permitted to withdraw this petition with a liberty to move such
application for restoration along with the application for
condonation of delay and, thereafter, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal shall hear and decide such application on payment of Court
Fees, in accordance with law and on merits after considering the
averments that may be made by the petitioner in such application.

With
these observations, the present petition is, accordingly disposed of
as withdrawn.

[
K. A. PUJ, J. ]

(vijay)

   

Top