Gujarat High Court
Teesta Atul Setalvad vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 January, 2013
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT R/SCR.A/2825/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2825 of 2012 ============================================================== TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance: MR KALPESH N SHASTRI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS MANISHA LAVKUMAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 21/01/2013 ORAL ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioner and respondents are present. However, since the petition is listed at Serial No.111 in today s cause list it could not be taken up for hearing due to paucity of time and heavy load on today s cause list and also for the reason that one particular matter consumes long hearing. At the end of the day, while rising of the Court, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has made some grievance with reference to, and in light of, the order dated 18.12.2012 and she submitted that the expression in the order dated 18.12.2012, i.e. the expression, Learned trial Court may pass appropriate order after hearing both sides , was misconstrued and misused and the learned trial Court was requested to pass certain orders in nature of directions on the application which came to be submitted to the learned trial Court pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2012, whereas it was understood that only simple request for adjournment was to be made and appropriate order was to be passed by the learned trial Court on the application for adjournment and the expression appropriate order was used to mean order granting adjournment .
The learned counsel for petitioner has admitted that the understanding before this Court was to submit simple application for adjournment (and nothing more) and order that was to be passed by the learned trial Court was to be restricted to adjournment only and the expression appropriate order was used to mean order granting adjournment .
Considering the grievance made by learned counsel for petitioner and justification behind it, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will not press the said application which has been filed before the trial Court after and pursuant to order dated 18.12.2012, until further order is passed in present petition after hearing both sides.
It is also clarified that the respondent s right to oppose the said application filed by the petitioner and/or respondent s right to file appropriate reply opposing said application is not foreclosed at this stage.
It is also clarified that since hearing of present petition is adjourned today, it would be open to the petitioner to make application for adjournment before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will pass order in connection with the request for adjournment.
With the said clarification, the hearing of present petition is adjourned to 8th February 2013.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Jani Page 3 of 3