Gopi Electronics vs Mgd Electronics Pvt. Lts.
2021 Latest Caselaw 5943 Guj

      C/FA/313/2020                                       IA ORDER DATED: 14/06/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
                      In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 of 2020
==========================================================

GOPI ELECTRONICS Versus MGD ELECTRONICS PVT. LTS.

========================================================== Appearance:

for the PETITIONER(s) No. ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the PETITIONER(s) No. ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR. AADIT R SANJANWALA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

Date : 14/06/2021

IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

The first appeal came to be admitted vide order dated 20.2.2020. The first appeal has been filed by the original defendant against a money decree passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in the Special Civil Suit No.281 of 2018 instituted by the respondent herein (original plaintiff).

It appears from the impugned judgment and order that the suit filed by the original plaintiff came to be partly allowed. The appellant herein (original defendant) has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,56,36,147/- to the plaintiff at the rate of 9% interest per annum. We take notice of the fact that earlier

C/FA/313/2020 IA ORDER DATED: 14/06/2021

Ms. Trusha Patel, the learned counsel was appearing on behalf of the appellant. Later Ms. Patel retired from the matter. In such circumstances, an administrative notice was issued to the appellant informing him to engage any other advocate or appear in person. Such administrative notice has been served upon the appellant. However, it appears that the appellant has not engaged any advocate nor is he present today in person.

In such circumstance, we dispose of the civil application clarifying that there is no interim relief in the matter and it shall be open for the respondent (decree holder) to proceed further with the execution of the money decree. Even otherwise, if money decree has to be stayed from its operation, implementation and execution, the judgment debtor will have to deposit the entire amount before this Court.

(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED