1. Petitioner Jaiminiben K. Pathak, appearing as party-in-person is present before the Court. Learned advocate Mr. R. C. Jani for the respondent No. 3 is present. Learned advocate Mr. Tarak Damani for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is also present. Right now it is 12:25 p.m. Inspite of the fact that this matter is listed at serial No. 57, considering the fact that there is some error in system, today s board has not been listed in usual manner and so, the most of the learned advocates are not in a position to have the idea, whether their petitions have been listed or not. Accordingly, this Court has reached the serial No. 57 at 12:25 p.m. and the party-in-person has shown her willingness to proceed with the matter.
Before the petitioner party-in-person proceeds with the matter, learned advocate Mr. R. C. Jani for the respondent No. 3 has requested this Court to refer the order dated 05/11/2012 and further submitted that, considering the prayer sought for in this Special Civil Application, the issue related to maintainability of the petition appears to have been decided as per the order dated 05/11/2012, passed by this Court.
3. Today is the first day of hearing and hence, this Court has drawn the attention of the petitioner party-in-person and requested her to go through the order dated 05/11/2012. Thereafter, thrice the direction has been given but as per the say of the petitioner party-in-person, after the order dated 05/11/2012, another bench of this Court has issued Notice vide order dated 04/12/2012 and hence, the order dated 05/11/2012 is null and void. Inspite of that, the Court has again directed the petitioner party-in-person to kindly read the order dated 05/11/2012, if at all it is null and void and thereafter, she can proceed in her own way, the petitioner party-in-person has said that in no case, she will read the order dated 05/11/2012 and she wants to proceed in her own way with the final hearing.
4. Considering the above conduct of the petitioner party-in-person, it appears that the petitioner party-in-person indirectly does not want to proceed with the matter with this Court. Hence, the Registry is directed to place this matter before another bench for consideration.
[ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Page 3 of 3