Purushottam G. Ruiya And 2 ORS. v. Vadilal K. Gada

1/2 40.CONP-31-2013.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.31 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2634 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.2317 OF 2006 Purushottam G. Ruiya & Ors.

....Petitioners V/s.

Vadilal K. Gada ....Respondent ---- Mr. Sandeep R. Jalan for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

---- CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 15th JULY, 2016 P.C.:- By an order of 19th July, 2013 the notice was directed to be issued before admission returnable on 16th August, 2013. Till date the notice has not been served. The counsel for the petitioners states that he does not know where the Contemnor is. The counsel for the petitioners also states that the alleged Contemnor has filed an Appeal in this court against the decree passed in the suit but he is unable to explain in that case why he has not served the alleged Contemnor. The counsel for the petitioners keeps stating that the alleged Contemnor was not found at the addressed shown in the cause title. Gauri Gaekwad

2/2 40.CONP-31-2013.doc In the circumstances, the petitioners not having served the Contemnor, the contempt petition stands disposed. (K.R.SHRIRAM,J) Gauri Gaekwad