Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 69 (GUJ)

R GANDHI v. RADHEKISHEN RAMNARESH MISHRA

2006-02-02

RAVI R.TRIPATHI

body2006
( 1 ) THE applicant has approached this Court with the prayer that:"your Lordships may be pleased to transfer the motor Accident Claims Petition No. 849/ 92, pending at the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Surendranagar to Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Ahmedabad City. " ( 2 ) THE grounds for transfer as set out in the application are that the applicant is a permanent resident of the city of Ahmedabad; that the applicant is residing at ahmedabad; that it is difficult for him to attend hearing of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at surendranagar; that the Regional Office of opponent no. 3 is also at Ahmedabad; that the witnesses are also residing at Ahmedabad. Besides, it is submitted that the opponents are not to be prejudiced in any manner if the motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No. 849 of 1992 is transferred to Ahmedabad. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that opponents no. 1 and 2 are residing at mumbai, which is comparatively nearer to Ahmedabad than surendranagar. Be that as it may, this petition was affirmed on 30th May 2003 and filed on 18th June 2003. The order sheet of the application on perusal reveals that after the application was filed on 18th June 2003, the matter was firstly listed on 1st August 2003 before the court (Coram: K. M. Mehta, J. ). It was adjourned to 11th august 2003. On 11th August 2003 it was listed before brother Mr. Justice Kundan Singh. The Court was pleased to pass the following order:"list has been revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this application. The application is dismissed for default. "later on, it appears that the Court passed the following order at the request being made by the learned advocate,"restored at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner before signature of the order. Put up this matter on 13. 8. 2003. " ( 4 ) THE matter was listed on 14th August 2003. The Court was pleased to issue notice returnable on 1st September 2003. Thereafter, the matter went on getting adjourned from time to time. Again the matter was adjourned on few dates. The matter was listed before this Court (Coram: p. B. Majmudar, J.) on 23rd January 2004 and the Court passed the following order:"rule returnable on 25th February 2004. Direct service qua respondent no. 3 is permitted. Thereafter, the matter went on getting adjourned from time to time. Again the matter was adjourned on few dates. The matter was listed before this Court (Coram: p. B. Majmudar, J.) on 23rd January 2004 and the Court passed the following order:"rule returnable on 25th February 2004. Direct service qua respondent no. 3 is permitted. "it was then on Board on 2nd July 2004 and this Court (Coram: J. R. Vora, J.) passed the following order:"learned advocate Mr. Dharmishta Nanavati for learned advocate Mr. N. R. Shukla for the petitioner seeks time for taking necessary steps for unserved respondents. S. O. to 23. 7. 2004. "2. Again, on 23rd July 2004 this Court (Coram: J. R. Vora, j.) passed the following order:"ld. Advocate Mr. Nigam Shukla seeks time. S. O. to 30. 07. 2004 to enable ld. Advocate Mr. Nigam shukla to take necessary steps. "on 30th July 2004 this Court (Coram D. P. Buch, J.) passed the following order:"mr. Nigam Shukla has filed sick note. The Board shows that respondent no. 1 unserved. Respondent no. 2 unserved expired. The petitioner to take appropriate steps. S. O. To 31. 8. 2004. "on 28th September 2004 this Court (Coram: P. B. Majmudar, j.) passed the following order:"mr. Shukla, ld. Adv. is not present. S. O. to 26. 10. 04. " ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, on number of occasions the matter is adjourned to enable the learned advocate to take appropriate steps to serve notice of rule on unserved opponents. Till date the learned advocate has not taken any trouble to see that the opponents are served. Today, this matter is listed for 51st time. When the matter is called out, the learned advocate Mr. Nigam Shukla is not present before the Court. From the record it is clear that the learned advocate has not taken any steps to serve rule issued by this Court on 3rd January 2004, despite the fact that the matter is adjourned umpteen number of times. ( 6 ) HAVING perused the papers of the case, no case is made out for transfer of MACP No. 849 of 1992 pending before the MACT, Surendranagar to MACT, Ahmedabad. Hence this application is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. .