Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Chimanlal Mehta & Co. Pvt.Ltd vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 29 February, 2016

Author: S.R.Brahmbhatt

Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt, K.J.Thaker

                  C/FA/5685/1999                                            ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            FIRST APPEAL     NO. 5685 of 1999

         ==============================================================
                 CHIMANLAL MEHTA & CO. PVT.LTD.....Appellant
                                   Versus
                AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION....Defendant
         ==============================================================
         Appearance:
         NOTICE UNSERVED for the Appellant
         MS JIRGA D JHAVERI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant No. 1
         ==============================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

                                   Date : 29/02/2016

                                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT) On 27.01.2016, the Court had to pass the following order.

Shri Vinay Bairagra, learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for the appellant submitted that on account of peculiar facts, now their firm would not be in a position to represent the appellant and copy of e- mail is placed on record, the same is taken on record. Office is directed to issue notice to appellant returnable on 29.2.2016 with specific observation that matter is that of the year 1999 and the appellant shall have to make an arrangement for seeing to it that his case be represented by engaging an advocate or otherwise, else the Court will be constrained to pass appropriate order including the order of dismissing the matter for default.

HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed Mar 02 01:57:39 IST 2016 C/FA/5685/1999 ORDER Today, when the matter was called out it was noticed that unfortunately there is no whereabouts of the appellant. We are of the view that the mater is that of year 1999 and had the appellant been interested in pursuing the matter, he would be vigilantly following it. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant has lost interest in the matter. Hence, it is required to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

However, in case, if there is a cause for not responding or he is not in a position to be served, let there be a liberty to the appellant to revive the matter in case of difficulty in future.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) Pankaj Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed Mar 02 01:57:39 IST 2016