IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1889 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- SHAH SHANTILAL KESHAVLAL Versus PADMABEN WD/O PRABHASHANKAR NARANBHAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner (MR VS MEHTA) for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 18/02/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This is a very old matter of the year 1984 arising under the Bombay Rent Act, and as such, has been specifically fixed for final hearing by the direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and has accordingly been placed on today's Board. 2. It is found from the record that the said petition was originally filed by the petitioner's advocate Shri D.G.Karia, who was later on elevated to the Bench. The Registry therefore served a notice upon the present petitioner to engage another advocate or to remain present to argue the matter. This notice is shown to have been served on the petitioner many years ago. However, no appearance has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is not present in person to pursue the matter. 3. This revision is therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. Ad interim relief stands vacated. ***** parmar*