Parmanand Kanaiyalal Nimbark & vs A M C & 3 on 20 November, 2014

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Parmanand Kanaiyalal Nimbark & vs A M C & 3 on 20 November, 2014

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 : 20/11/2014

                                   ORAL ORDER

The Appeal is of the year 1989. In the midst of the final hearing, it was noticed that 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.

Page 1 of 2 C/FA/868/1989 ORDER

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 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.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup Page 2 of 2

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court