GUJ.ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW DAXIN GUJARAT VIJ CO.LTDversusSWARUPSHRI YARN PVT LTD
- Disposal
- 40-WITHDRAWN @ FH
- Bench
- C DOSHI
Holding
The Court dismissed the appeals for non‑prosecution as the parties had lost interest in pursuing the litigation.
Summary
The Gujarat Electricity Board (now Daxin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd) and Swarupshri Yarn Pvt. Ltd were parties to cross‑appeals arising from a common judgment dated 30 March 2000. The appeals had been adjourned repeatedly on the ground of settlement, and a stay application filed by the Board was rejected in 2018. When the matter came up for hearing, the respondent did not appear, and the Board's counsel could not ascertain whether any settlement had been effected or whether execution proceedings were pending. The Court observed that both parties appeared to have lost interest in the litigation. Consequently, the Court dismissed both appeals for non‑prosecution, noting that any future restoration would require an affidavit stating that the cause of action still exists. The order left the matter closed pending any appropriate restoration application.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal may be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to lack of participation by the parties
- Whether a restoration application can be entertained after dismissal for non‑prosecution
Subjects
Judgment
C/FA/720/2002 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 720 of 2002
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 721 of 2002
==========================================================
GUJ.ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW DAXIN GUJARAT VIJ CO.LTD
Versus
SWARUPSHRI YARN PVT LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MD PANDYA(548) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MAYA S DESAI(285) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NANAVATY ADVOCATES(1373) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 04/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The cross appeals arise out of the common
judgement and decree dated 30.03.2000, whereby
Special Civil Suit No.74 of 1992 was decreed in
favour of the plaintiffs and defendant-GEB’s
Special Civil Suit No.37 of 1998 was dismissed
with costs.
2. The order sheet reflects that from 21.06.2002
till 24.06.2003, the matter was being adjourned
on the ground of settlement. Ultimately, the
appeals were admitted vide order dated
29.07.2003. It is further noticed that in the
Civil Application (for stay) No.9041 of 2014,
which was filed by the defendant-GEB seeking the
stay on the impugned judgement and decree and by
the order dated 09.02.2018, the said application
was rejected.
Page 1 of 2
C/FA/720/2002 ORDER DATED: 04/10/2022
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for
hearing, none has chosen to appear on behalf of
the opponent-Swarupshri Yarn Pvt. Ltd., whereas
learned advocate Ms.Desai is present for the
applicant-GEB.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Desai has submitted that
she has no instructions as to whether the
settlement is being fructified or not. It is also
submitted that the appellant has no instructions
whether any execution application is filed by the
opponent. It is submitted that despite her best
efforts, no instructions are received in the
matter and she does not know the status of the
impugned judgement and decree, whether it is
implemented or not, even after rejection of the
civil application for stay.
5. Under the circumstances, it appears that the
parties have lost interest in the litigation and
hence, both the appeals stand dismissed for non-
prosecution. If any restoration application is
filed, the same shall contain affidavit of the
appellants 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.