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 1, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Kirit Bhimjibhai Patel & vs Kaushik Dhirubhai Patel & 2 on 19 September, 2014

Author: S.G.Shah

Bench: S.G.Shah

          C/AO/410/2013                                 ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 410 of 2013


                                 With
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11276 of 2013
                                  In
                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 410 of 2013
================================================================
             KIRIT BHIMJIBHAI PATEL & 1....Appellant(s)
                              Versus
           KAUSHIK DHIRUBHAI PATEL & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR M PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.SHAH

                           Date : 19/09/2014


                             ORAL ORDER

Registry has to verify the proof of service upon respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

Considering the disclosure of status of defendants before the trial Court in para 7 of the impugned judgment. It seems that defendants have never resisted the suit and interim application before the trial Court.

Therefore, let there be a direction to the defendants not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff qua suit property till next Page 1 of 2 C/AO/410/2013 ORDER date of hearing.

However, considering the nature of dispute and non appearance of defendants before the trial Court, more particularly when trial Court has recorded that one advocate Mr. K. M. Sojitra has filed appearance for defendant No.2 and only an application for adjournment is filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 3 and thereafter they never appeared before the trial Court, therefore, it would be appropriate to issue notice upon respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is to be forwarded to the trial Court for serving it through the concerned advocate Mr. Sojitra. If it could not be served through advocate, the process server of the trial Court shall affix the notice at both the addressed, which are disclosed on record. One additional notice shall be affixed at the suit premises also.

So far as notice upon respondent No.3 is concerned, it is to be forwarded to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) also for serving through the process server and process server shall file report as per the Code of Civil Procedure without fail.

List on 11.11.2014.

(S.G.SHAH, J.) drashti Page 2 of 2