1. This petition is preferred challenging the order of the trial court dated 16th March 2012 whereby the request of the petitioner-original defendant in the capacity of a senior citizen to expeditiously try all the suits being 78/2005, 82/2005 and 135 of 2005 vide Exh. 88 has been rejected in wake of the reply filed by the original plaintiff respondent herein vide Exh. 90.
2. Learned advocate Ms. Trusha Patel appearing for the petitioner urges that the trial court has committed an error in rejecting the request of the present petitioner interalia urging all the suit may be heard expeditiously as possible as petitioner No.1 and respondent No. 1 are senior citizen.
3. It is further alleged that such request being in consonance with settled guidelines, respondent plaintiff could not have opposed the same.
4. The Court while rejecting such a request of the petitioner defendant has emphasised on the fact that the stage is of adducing the evidence of the respondent-original plaintiff. And, in light of contents of reply Exh. 90 application for expeditious hearing did not weigh with the Court in not allowing such request.
Instead of denying such request, the Court could have tasted the guidelines in this regard, however, this petition is not being entertained. Instead the petitioner original defendant is given liberty to approach the trial Court which shall decide such request keeping in mind the guidelines issued by this Court concerning the trial of matter of senior citizens as litigating parties. The Court shall decide such an application without being influenced by any observation done in this petition.
5. As this petition is being decided in limine without, issuing notice to the otherside, either party can approach this Court within six weeks of the receipt of this orders, in the event of any difficulty.
7. Resultantly this petition stands disposed of.
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.) mary// Top