High Court of Gujarat

COMMISSIONERversusGAURIBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI

Disposal: 46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH
Bench: C DOSHI

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The High Court of Gujarat heard First Appeal No. 874 of 2002 filed by the Commissioner against Gauriben Purshottambhai and others. The matter was previously adjourned on 26 September 2016 because the appellant’s counsel and the respondents’ counsel were absent. On 23 September 2022, only the respondents’ counsel appeared while the appellant’s counsel, Mr H.S. Munshaw, was again absent. The Court dismissed the appeal for non‑prosecution, directing that any application for restoration must be accompanied by an affidavit stating whether the cause of action survives.

Issues considered

Whether the appeal can be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the appellant’s counsel’s absence
Whether a restoration application is permissible after such dismissal

Subjects

non‑prosecutiondismissalrestorationcivil procedureHigh Courtadjournment

Judgment

     C/FA/874/2002                                 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 874 of 2002
==========================================================
                           COMMISSIONER
                              Versus
                 GAURIBEN PURSHOTTAMBHAI & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VH KANARA(1881) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 5
SERVED BY RPAD (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                             Date : 23/09/2022
                              ORAL ORDER

1.    On     26.09.2016,        this      Court    has       passed          the
following order:

     “When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned
     advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the appellant as well as
     learned advocate Mr.V.H.Kanara for the respondents
     No.1 to 4 are not present.
     At the request of learned advocate Mr.Raviraj Chauhan
     for learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati appearing
     for the respondent No.6, the matter is adjourned.”


2.    Today, when the matter is called out, learned
advocate Ms.Masumi Nanavati for learned advocate
Mr.Vibhuti           Nanavati         and        learned          advocate
Ms.Shivangi            Vyas        for         learned            advocate
Mr.V.H.Kanara           is      present,          whereas           learned
advocate Mr.Munshaw is not present.

3.    Hence, the matter stands dismissed for non-
prosecution.         If any restoration              application             is


                                 Page 1 of 2
     C/FA/874/2002                            ORDER DATED: 23/09/2022




filed,      the      same   shall   contain   affidavit           inter
alia stating whether the cause of action survives
or not.
                                                             Sd/-
                                                     (A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA




                               Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "non‑prosecution"Sign in to search