The High Court of Gujarat dismissed Special Civil Application No. 2962 of 2008 for want of prosecution as the petitioner's counsel was absent during multiple calls, and vacated any interim relief.
Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/2962/2008 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2962 of 2008
==========================================================
VILASBEN NARENDRASINH SISODIYA
Versus
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHENDRA K PATEL(1591) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR BHARGAV PANDYA, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 10/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called out even in the third
round, learned advocate for the petitioner is not
present nor any mentioning is made on his behalf.
Therefore, the Court is constrained to dismiss the
matter for want of prosecution.
Hence, the matter is dismissed for want of
prosecution. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if
any, granted earlier stands vacated.
(A.J. SHASTRI, J)
V.J. SATWARA
Page 1 of 1
VILASBEN NARENDRASINH SISODIYA
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
A.J. SHASTRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court