Gujarat High Court
Parmanand Kanaiyalal Nimbark & vs A M C & 3 on 17 December, 2014
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/FA/868/1989 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 of 1989
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9559 of 2006
In
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2064 of 1989
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12419 of 2014
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 of 1989
================================================================
PARMANAND KANAIYALAL NIMBARK & 1....Appellant(s)
Versus
A M C & 3....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANSHIN H DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2
VIRAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 - 3
MR IM PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 17/12/2014
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Today, when the Appeal was taken up for further hearing, on behalf of respondent No.4, a party-in- person, claiming to be son of respondent No.4, appeared to request to grant time to engage an advocate. Respondent No.4 was previously appearing through learned advocate who however retired.
2. Thereupon, on 20.11.2014, following order passed, "The Appeal is of the year 1989. In the midst of the final hearing, it was noticed that Page 1 of 3 C/FA/868/1989 ORDER respondent No.1-Ahmedabed Municipal Corporation, though considered to be a necessary party, had not been appearing. By order dated 29th September, 2014 notice to respondent No.1-Corporation was issued. Thereupon respondent No.1 has appeared through learned advocate.
2. Today when the matter came up for further hearing, learned advocate Mr. I. M. Pandya for respondent No.4 expressed his inability to conduct and appear in the matter, stating that he has addressed a letter dated 01st December, 2014 to his client seeking to retire from the matter.
3. Learned advocate shall file necessary note about his proposed retirement from the matter with the Registry with a copy of said letter seeking his withdrawal from the matter.
4. It is due to this intervening event of learned advocate wanting to withdraw his appearance, the Court is constrained to adjourn the Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Anshin Desai for the applicant submitted that since hearing of the Appeal which is of the year 1989, has already commenced, it could not be book any further delay.
5. List the Appeal for further hearing on 04th December, 2014. It is clarified that since the matter is old and hearing has already commenced, if by the next date alternative arrangement is Page 2 of 3 C/FA/868/1989 ORDER not made by respondent No.4, subject to convenience of the Court, the matter shall proceed.
6. Learned advocate Mr. I. M. Pandya is directed to inform respondent No.4 about the present order."
3. As could be clearly seen from the above order, it was observed that if any alternative arrangement was to be made by respondent No.4, the same shall be made before the next date of hearing and learned advocate Mr. I. M. Pandya then appearing was directed to inform respondent No.4. It is after almost a month that the request has forthcome today to grant time to engage an advocate on behalf of respondent No.4.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Anshin Desai seriously contended that other side is only interested in whiling away time somehow and anyhow.
5. However, only in order to see as a last opportunity, the matter shall be listed on 22.12.2014. If respondent No. 4 wants to engage an advocate, he may engage on or before 19.12.2012 by filing Vakalatnama of his advocate. The matter being of the year 1989 and in the mids of the hearing, no further time will be granted.
To be listed on 22nd December, 2014.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) chandrashekhar Page 3 of 3