Gujarat Flying Club vs Pankajbhai Ramanlal Pandya & on 10 March, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Gujarat Flying Club vs Pankajbhai Ramanlal Pandya & on 10 March, 2016

Bench: K.M.Thaker

                 C/SCA/10760/2013                                            ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10760 of 2013

         ==========================================================
                       GUJARAT FLYING CLUB....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
                 PANKAJBHAI RAMANLAL PANDYA & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR HARSHAD K PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         MR PARITOSH CALLA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER

                                    Date : 10/03/2016


                                     ORAL ORDER

1. When the petition is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Learned advocate for the respondent is present. Any request for passover or adjournment is also not made.

2. This petition was listed for hearing on 23.2.2016. On the said date also, the petitioner did not care to attend the hearing. Therefore, the petition was dismissed on ground of non Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:50:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/10760/2013 ORDER prosecution. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application, i.e. Misc. Civil Application No.776 of 2016. Considering the request made in the application, the request was granted and the petition came to be restored.

3. Thereafter, the petition is again listed for hearing today. As mentioned hereinabove, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. The Court heard the submissions by learned advocate for the respondent for about 20 minutes. However, learned advocate for the petitioner did not appear.

4. At this stage, colleague of learned advocate for the petitioner appeared and made request for adjourning the hearing.

5. The Court declined to grant adjournment in view of the fact that the petition is rotating for admission in the Cause List since 2013 and it is already adjourned 49 times.

6. In that view of the matter, the Court Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:50:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/10760/2013 ORDER declined to adjourn the hearing. At that stage the learned advocate for the petitioner requested for passover.

7. Having regard to the fact that this Court is assigned final hearing of old petitions and considering the fact that once the final hearing of a petition would commence, then it would not be possible to take up second call of the petitions listed on Admission Board and a passover would ultimately result into another (i.e. 50th) adjournment. Therefore, the Court rejected the request for passover as well.

8. Even thereafter the Court heard learned advocate for the respondent for about 5 minutes, however, the learned advocate for the petitioner did not appear. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.

(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:50:34 IST 2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court