1. The present application, which is styled as "Application for restoration/ setting aside order in MCA No.3074/10", has been filed with the following prayers:
"9) Therefore, the applicant prays that-
a) to allow this application by an appropriate order and to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in MCA No.3074/2010 on 25.11.2010 and to restore the MCA No.3074/2010.
b) Any other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper looking to the facts of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice "
2. It appears from the averments made in the application that the applicants, who are the Power of Attorney Holders of the original petitioners, filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No.3074 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9218 of 1998, for impleadment. Said application was rejected, both, for want of prosecution and on merits, by order dated 25.11.2010, of this Court. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 3074 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9218 of 1998 ==================================================== DALAJI GALABJI, DECEASED BY KAMLESH N THAKKAR & P N THAKKAR - Applicant(s) Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - Opponent(s) ==================================================== Appearance :
MR NANDLAL THAKKAR for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Opponent(s) :
1, ==================================================== CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date : 25/11/2010 ORAL ORDER The matter has been called out twice. Learned advocate for the applicant is absent at both the calls.
Even otherwise, on merits, this application is belated and no explanation is forthcoming for the delay except the prayer made in paragraph No.10(c).
The Misc. Civil Application is accordingly rejected both for want of prosecution and on merits.
(D.A.MEHTA, J.)"
3. Mr.Nandlal Thakkar, learned advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the said application was listed for removal of office objections in the cause-list on 25.11.2010. A copy of the extract of the cause-list has been appended to the application at running page 6 thereof. From the above, it is not clear whether the application was listed for removal of office objections, or not. However, this aspect may not be relevant in view of the other overriding aspects of the matter. It is further submitted by Mr.Thakkar that since the application was specifically listed for removal of office objections, an order could not have been passed rejecting the same on the ground of non-prosecution and on merits, as it is the practice and custom of this Court to grant time for removal of office objections. It is further contended that the order dated 25.11.2010 is an ex parte order and the matter could not have been rejected without hearing the learned advocate. Averments of a similar nature have been made in the memorandum of the application.
4. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicants and on perusal of the order dated 25.11.2010, it is evident that the application has been rejected both, for want of prosecution, and on merits. This being the position, this Court, cannot adjudicate upon this matter, and it is not possible to grant the prayers made in the application, which are akin to those made in an appeal.
5. When the matter has been rejected on the ground of non-prosecution and on merits by a co-ordinate Bench, this Court cannot interfere with the order. If the applicants are aggrieved by the said order, it is open to them to take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy.
For the aforestated reasons, the application is rejected.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) (sunil) Top