High Court of Gujarat

MAYANKBHAI ROHITKUMAR SHAHversusGujarat Industrial Development Corporation

Disposal: 37-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ ADMISSION
Bench: MAULIK SHELAT

Holding

The court declined further adjournment and dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Mayankbhai Rohitkumar Shah, repeatedly sought adjournments in a civil application concerning Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. Despite multiple extensions granted by the court, the petitioner failed to prosecute the matter, citing senior citizen status and a need to file a rejoinder. The court noted that the reply dated 27.08.2019 was received only on 05.09.2019 and that the case dates back to 2018. After several warnings that no further adjournments would be entertained, the court declined the latest request for a stay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution and the notice was discharged, with a caveat that any restoration application may be considered on conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the court should grant a further adjournment to the petitioner on the ground of senior citizen status and pending rejoinder
Whether the petition should be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to repeated adjournments and lack of progress

Subjects

adjournmentnon-prosecutioncivil proceduresenior citizenpetition dismissal

Judgment

     C/SCA/7220/2018                                    ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7220 of 2018

=============================================
                MAYANKBHAI ROHITKUMAR SHAH
                                Versus
         Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR YASH PALSINH KHER FOR MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for Petitioner No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NANCY SONI FOR GUPTA LAW ASSOCIATES(9818) for Respondent No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

                           Date : 20/04/2026
                            ORAL ORDER


1.    When         the   matter     was         taken    up     for      hearing,
Mr.Yashpalsinh            Kher,         learned            advocate               for
Mr.B.M.Mangukiya,          learned advocate             for the petitioner,
requested for some time.


2.    On previous occasions, this Court has passed the
following orders :


        “12.06.2025
        At the request of learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya for the
        petitioner, matter is adjourned to 10.7.2025.

        05.01.2026
        None present for the petitioner. In the interest of justice,
        S.O. to 2nd March, 2026.

        02.03.2026
        On request of Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate for the
        petitioner, as a last chance, stand over to 17 th March, 2026.
        It is made clear that, on the next date of hearing, this Court
        will not entertain such request.



                                  Page 1 of 2
          C/SCA/7220/2018                                                                ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026




               17.03.2026 :

                     Mr.B.M.Mangukiya,     learned      advocate                                    for       the
               petitioner requests for time to file rejoinder.
                        Reluctantly, it is granted. S.O. to 13 th April, 2026.”



  3.         Today also, there is a request made on behalf of the
  petitioner to further adjourn the matter on the ground that
  the petitioner is a Senior Citizen and a rejoinder is to be filed.


  4.         It appears that a copy of the reply dated 27.08.2019 is
  received by the petitioner on 05.09.2019 and time and again
  this Court has accommodated the learned advocate for the
  petitioner. On the last occasion as well, reluctantly, this Court
  had adjourned the matter on the assurance of Mr.Mangukiya,
  learned advocate for the petitioner that the matter would be
  conducted on the next date of hearing.

  5.         In light of the aforesaid orders and considering the fact
  that the matter pertains to the year 2018, this Court has
  declined the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner
  to adjourn the matter.

  6.         Hence, the present petition is dismissed for non-
  prosecution. Notice is discharged.

  7.         It is hereby observed that if any restoration application
  will be filed by the petitioner in this petition, same shall be
  entertained by the Court on imposing appropriate condition,
  including cost.

                                                                                 (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
  GAURAV J THAKER
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: GAURAVKUMAR JANARDANBHAI THAKER(HC00951), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/04/2026 14:21:09

                                                          Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

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

Try "adjournment"Sign in to search