Bharat Karunashankar Pandya v. Smt. Alka Nitin Pandya And ORS.

940-NMT57-15.DOC SHEPHALI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 57 OF 2015 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 101 OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 998 OF 2009 Bharat K. Pandya ...Applicant In the matter between Bharat K. Pandya ...Plaintiff

Versus

Alka Nitin Pandya & Jayshree R. Pandya ...Defendants None for the Plaintiffs.

Ms. Jaini Shah, i/b Mr.

Akshay Vani, for Defendant No. 1.

Mr. Abhishek Khare, i/b M/s. Khare Legal Chambers, for Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

5th May 2016 PC:- 1.

The Motion was unnecessary. It seeks that the Suit be expedited and that appropriate pre-trial orders or the direction be passed. This could have been sought on a praecipe. There is no reason to grant any specific order in terms of these prayers. No purpose will be achieved by merely granting to those prayers. It is far 5th May 2016

940-NMT57-15.DOC more effective and efficient to actually do what the Motion desires to be done, and that is to move the Suit long. 2.

I propose to take up the suit forthwith for framing issues. 3.

I notice that despite filing a completely unnecessary Motion for expediting the Suit, when the Motion is taken up, the Plaintiff and his Advocate are absent. Nonetheless, an order has been passed on both Motion and the in the Suit.

4.

The Notice of Motion is disposed of with no order as to costs. (G. S. PATEL, J.) 5th May 2016