Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State vs Executive on 30 April, 2010

Author: K.M.Thaker

Bench: K.M.Thaker

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/3463/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3463 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 5597 of 1998
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
VS PATHAK, AGP for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
7. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 30/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

Heard learned AGP Ms. V. S. Pathak appearing for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Chhaya appearing for the respondent nos.3 to 5.

Today, learned advocate Mr. Chhaya has stated that according to his information respondent nos.2, 6 and 7 have expired. He, however, also stated that he is going to enter his appearance on behalf of the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased opponents, however, he can do so only after the applicant appellant takes necessary steps to bring the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased opponents on record. While appearing for respondent nos.3 to 5 he submitted that the said respondents have no objection if the application is allowed.

Considering the relief prayed for in the application, even if the application is granted, having regard to the fact that the learned advocate for the respondent nos.3 to 5 has no objection then also the interest of the unserved opponents nos.2, 6 and 7 and/or their heirs/legal representatives will not be adversely affected.

The applicant of present application is the original opponent no.1 before the Land Reference Court. Differently put the applicant herein is not a stranger to the proceedings or is not a party who was not impleaded to the proceedings before the Land Reference Court. From the impugned award it comes out that the applicant herein was original opponent no.1 before the Land Reference Court. The First Appeal No.5597 of 1998 has been filed by the opponent no.2 before the Land Reference Court and in the cause title of the appeal, present applicant has been shown as opponent no.7.

The applicant, in effect wants transposition of opponent no.7 as appellant on the ground that opponent no.7 has been erroneously shown as opponent whereas actually the said opponent ought to have been impleaded as appellant since he was one of the opponents before the Land Reference Court.

Having regard to the submissions of learned AGP Ms.Pathak, it emerges that the mistake is bonafide and anybody's interest will not be affected adversely if the application is allowed and the applicant is permitted to correct the mistake. Hence the application is allowed. The relief prayed for in para-3(A) and para-3(B) are granted. The applicant herein is allowed to transpose/impleade the said opponent no.7 as appellant no.2 in the First Appeal No.5597 of 1998. The applicant shall carry out necessary amendment in the appeal within one week from today. After carrying out the amendment, the opponents will be supplied with the amended copy of the appeal memo.

Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila)     Top