Gujarat High Court
CRA/636/1982 of SAKINABIBI, WD/O SHERMOHAMED BANUMIYA Vs MOHANLAL DEVJIBHAI on 1 December 1995
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 1982 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.B. BHATT: =============================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.636 OF 1982
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Y.B. BHATT:
===============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
------------------------------------------------------------ Appearance:
Mr. J.M. Patel, advocate for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM: Y.B. BHATT J.
Date of Decision: 01-12-1995
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Jitendra M. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent states that the sole petitioner has expired long ago and that intimation in this regard was given to Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner in or about April 1994. In this context Ms. Maya Desai for Mr. M.D. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that soon thereafter the son of the sole petitioner had taken away the papers from Mr.
Page 1 of 2
M.D. Pandya and has absolved him from further responsibilities in the matter. She further states that the said matter was entrusted to Mr. Pandya through the High Court Legal Aid Committee. Inquiry with the Legal Aid Committee discloses that the concerned party has not contacted them, nor has requested that the matter be assigned to any other advocate. It, therefore, appears that the heirs of the sole deceased petitioner are no longer interested in the matter. This revision is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty.
******
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…