Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2013
  6. /
  7. January

Shrimali Bharatkumar vs C S Hotels Pvt Ltd (Hotel

High Court Of Gujarat|20 September, 2013
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER) Heard Mr.Karia, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate respondents No.1 and 2.
This application seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring application for review of order dated 15.10.2008 in group of Letters Patent Appeals being LPA No.1130/2008 and cognate matters, is similar to and is preferred in connection with the same order which was subject matter of Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.11715 of 2011. It is matter of record that the said other Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.11715 of 2011 is allowed by the Division Bench (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.M. Sahai and Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.B. Shah), vide order dated 25.9.2012.
In that view of the matter, learned advocate for the applicants would submit that similar order may be passed in present application as well inasmuch as the application seeking review of the order is taken out against the same order and the facts and circumstances urged by the applicants in both the applications are almost similar.
Learned advocate for the respondents has opposed the request to condone the delay, though in another connected and similar matter, the Division Bench has already condoned delay.
Under the circumstances, we are of considered-view that it would be appropriate to consider the grounds urged by the applicants for review of the order along with the application seeking condonation of delay, i.e. both applications may be heard together.
Therefore, this application is directed to be heard along with Civil Application (for Condonation of Delay) No.11715 of 2011 whereby the applicants have prayed for review of the order.
Order on this application will be passed along with order in the main application.
S.O.
to 27.9.2013 at 4.30 p.m. (K.M.THAKER, J.) (N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Bharat Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.