Maniben Suthar (Gajjar) W/O ... vs Barot Ravjibhai Baldevbhai
2023 Latest Caselaw 2806 Guj

       C/FA/1684/2003                               ORDER DATED: 06/04/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1684 of 2003

==========================================================
        MANIBEN SUTHAR (GAJJAR) W/O GOVINDLAL BEHCARDAS
                             Versus
                   BAROT RAVJIBHAI BALDEVBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                Date : 06/04/2023
                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Perused the Bailiff Report and heard learned Advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta on behalf of the respondent.

2. The present first appeal had been preferred challenging judgment and

order dated 31.07.2002 in Civil Suit No. 654 of 1989 preferred by the

appellant herein, more particularly whereby the suit came to be rejected.

3. It appears that vide an order dated 15.06.2005 the first appeal had

been admitted and whereas later on vide an order dated 25.01.2023 this

Court had recorded the submissions of learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.M.

Joshi who was originally appearing on behalf of the appellant that on

account of the fact that the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi was not able

to contact the appellant, therefore the Vakalatnama could not be replaced

and whereas the matter could not be proceeded further. Considering the

C/FA/1684/2003 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2023

same, this Court had permitted learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi to retire

and whereas Advocate Notice had been issued to the appellant. In response,

it appears that the Bailiff when he had gone to serve the original appellant,

a person, more particularly grandson of the appellant has inter alia put an

endorsement that his grandmother - the appellant herein had expired at least

15 years earlier.

4. Considering the fact that the appellant is stated to have expired

around 15 years prior to the present year and having regard to the fact that

no steps have been taken to bring legal heirs of the deceased appellant, in

the considered opinion of this Court, the present first appeal would not

survive, the same is disposed of as having abated.

5. Registry to transmit record and proceedings back to the learned Trial

Court.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA