High Court of Gujarat

CHANDRABEN D/O MEDSINH DOLATSINHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 43-DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT @ FH
Bench: DIVYESH A JOSHI

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner’s counsel failed to appear and no alternative arrangement was made.

Summary

Chandraben D/O Medsinh Dolatsinh & Anr filed a Special Civil Application against the State of Gujarat. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. MB Gohil, failed to appear for the second hearing and made no alternative arrangement, indicating a lack of desire to proceed. The Court observed that without representation the petition could not be pursued. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution, discharged the rule, and vacated any interim relief that had been granted. The order was signed by Justice Divyesh A. Joshi on 18 March 2026.

Issues considered

Can a petition proceed in the absence of the petitioner’s counsel without any alternative arrangement?
Should the petition be dismissed for want of prosecution?

Subjects

procedural lawdismissal for want of prosecutionspecial civil applicationinterim relief vacatedcourt procedure

Judgment

         C/SCA/9498/2007                                                             ORDER DATED: 18/03/2026




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.                                        9498 of 2007

==========================================================
                    CHANDRABEN D/O MEDSINH DOLATSINH & ANR.
                                     Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB GOHIL(2702) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR JAY TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                            Date : 18/03/2026

                                                   ORAL ORDER


           Even in second call, neither learned advocate
for        the        petitioners                   has        remained              present              nor        any
alternative arrangement has been made on his behalf.
It seems that learned advocate for the petitioners is
not desirous in proceeding further with the matter.
Hence,              the          matter              is         dismissed                  for          want           of
prosecution. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any,
stands vacated.

                                                                             (DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: LAVKUMAR JAYANTBHAI JANI(HC00210), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/03/2026 17:23:59




                                                       Page 1 of 1

Search Indian case law

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

Try "procedural law"Sign in to search