Parimal Dineshchandra Pathak vs Maheshgiri Guru Raghunathgiri Shri ... on 7 April, 2017

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Parimal Dineshchandra Pathak vs Maheshgiri Guru Raghunathgiri Shri ... on 7 April, 2017

Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla

                  C/CA/6961/2016                                            ORDER



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6961 of 2016
                               (FOR JOINING PARTY)
                                        In
                         FIRST APPEAL NO.  3292 of 2008

         =======================================================
               PARIMAL DINESHCHANDRA PATHAK....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
             MAHESHGIRI GURU RAGHUNATHGIRI SHRI MANOHARNATHJI 
                  MAHARAJ LUNAWADA  &  5....Respondent(s)
         =======================================================
         Appearance:
         HL PATEL ADVOCATES for the Applicant(s) No. 1
         GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3
         MR C B UPADHYAYA for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MS PJ DAVAWALA for the Respondent(s) No. 1  2
         MS SNEHA A JOSHI for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 , 6
         UNSERVEDEXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
         UNSERVEDREFUSED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         =======================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
          
                            Date : 07/04/2017
                                    ORAL ORDER

The present Civil Application is filed by the applicantproposed respondent no.4 for being substituted stating that Navnitbhai Patel, Advocate, who was the Receiver of the Trust has expired and, thereafter, the applicant has been nominated and is discharging duty as Receiver as per the order passed by the Charity Commissioner dated 08.11.2004.

Heard learned advocate, Shri Darshan Dave for HL Patel Advocates for the applicant and learned AGP Shri Banaji for the respondentState. Rest of the respondents and/or their respective learned advocates have not remained present.

Page 1 of 2

HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Apr 08 00:26:35 IST 2017 C/CA/6961/2016 ORDER In the circumstances, the present application stands allowed in terms of Para No.6B. The applicant is permitted to be substituted as prayed for. Learned advocate for the applicant is directed to carry out the amendment. Rule is made absolute.

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) Gautam Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Apr 08 00:26:35 IST 2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court