Heirs Of Bai Ujjam Tribhovan vs Jagdish Ravishankar
2024 Latest Caselaw 2943 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Heirs Of Bai Ujjam Tribhovan vs Jagdish Ravishankar on 1 April, 2024

                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SA/62/1985                                      ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024

                                                                                         undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 62 of 1985

==========================================================
                     HEIRS OF BAI UJJAM TRIBHOVAN & ORS.
                                     Versus
                         JAGDISH RAVISHANKAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MR VYAS(995) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.3,1.4,2,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.2,3
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                               Date : 01/04/2024

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. This appeal arises from the impugned judgment

and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Regular Civil

Suit No.242 of 1978 confirmed by the learned appellate Court

below by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.1984

in Regular Civil Appeal No.15 of 1982.

2. Today, when the matter is called out, neither

learned advocate Mr. M.R. Vyas nor the appellant/s nor any

representative of the appellants is present before this Court.

3. The matter is of the year 1985 and pending for

want of prosecution. From the record, it transpires that there

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SA/62/1985 ORDER DATED: 01/04/2024

undefined

are concurrent findings given by both the learned Courts

below against the appellant/s.

4. It is reported that on earlier occasions also, the

matter was dismissed for want of prosecution two times.

5. From above, it transpires that the appellants are

not interested to pursue this appeal. Though this appeal is

listed today under the caption 'critically old matters', no one

from the appellants has taken care to proceed with the

matter. Under the circumstances, this Court has no option

but to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution, again.

Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE