1. In this matter on 13.09.2013, this Court passed the following order:
This matter is that of year 1997 and in fact on earlier occasion in this sitting it was listed and called out. The Court observed that no time shall be granted in the matter looking to the fact that it is quite old matter which is required to be disposed of as soon as possible.
Today, learned advocate for the petitioner has filed sick report. In view there of and in view of the provision of Rule 132 of Gujarat High Court Rules, the Court is inclined to afford an opportunity for representing the case and orders that the matter be posted on 17/9/2013 with a specific observation that on that day irrespective of any leave note or sick note, matter must be proceeded with. In case of non-appearance on part of the counsel the Court would proceed further either by dismissing the matter for want of prosecution on the part of the counsel for the petitioner or may decide it on merits.
2. The matter was posted today with specific observation that in case of non appearance on the part of the counsel, Court would proceed further and pass order either on merit or dismiss for default. The matter is that of year 1997 and the records and various orders passed in this matter clearly evinced the lack of interest in proceeding further in the matter on the part of all the concerned, so far as the petitioner and/or counsel for the petitioner are concerned. The Court ordinarily would have adjourned the matter on account of sick note without even any specific request coming from any quarter, but when this Court is assigned roster of final disposal of the matters and this being a matter in which enough opportunity appears to have been granted and when no arrangements are made for representing the petitioner, the Court is left with no choice, but to dismiss the same for want of default, as the lack of interest is very much evinced on the part of the petitioner and/or counsel. The Court, therefore, while on earlier occasion i.e. on 13.09.2013, adjourning the matter clearly observed that the matter will not be adjourned and it will be appropriately disposed of. The record indicate that on 17.04.2006, this Court passed the following order:
This matter appears in the provisional board notified on 30/3/2006. Said provisional board is placed before this Court today only. The matter was called out thrice in the first session. In the second sessions also it was called out thrice. None appears for the parties. It appears that advocates appearing for the parties did not have adequate information about the matter being listed before this Court. In view of this, the matter is required to be adjourned in the interest of justice and is accordingly adjourned.
On 26.03.2012, this Court passed the following orders:
Ms.Srushti A.Thula, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that the matter has been remanded by the Division Bench for fresh hearing and it has come to her notice that some of the respondents have expired, but she is unable to ascertain the correct facts.
Issue Notice returnable on 27.04.2012.
On 20.06.2012, this Court passed the following orders:
At the request of Mr.Dhaval Jayswal, learned advocate for the petitioner, S.O. to 04.07.2012. Petitioner shall take appropriate steps to bring on record the legal heirs and representatives of deceased respondent No.4.
On 01.11.2012, this Court passed the following orders:
By earlier order dated 20.6.2012, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned advocate for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to bring on record the legal heirs and representatives of deceased respondent No.4. As a last chance, the petitioner is granted time till 11.12.2012 to take appropriate steps. S.O. to 11.12.2012.
As already mentioned, on 13.09.2013, this Court also passed the order clearly indicating that the matter must be proceeded with, despite that no arrangements are made for representing the petitioner as well as counsels have clearly indicated that they are not interested in prosecuting with the matter and when the matter is that of year 1997 and they lose interest in the matter, the Court is of the view that same is required to be dismissed for default. Orders accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Page 4 of 4