C/SCA/17908/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17908 of 2013 ========================================================== SOLANKI YASHWANTBHAI PRABHUDAS Versus NARENDRAKUMAR PRABHUDAS SOLANKI ========================================================== Appearance: MR PS CHAMPANERI(214) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR HARESH H PATEL(611) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 11/07/2018 ORAL ORDER The following order was passed on 3.7.2018. “The history of orders passed in this petition which was filed as back as on 10.12.2013, deserves to be noticed. 2. On 31.1.2014, the following order was passed, “When the petition is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Any request for passover or adjournment is also not made. However, instead of dismissing the petition for non-prosecution, hearing is adjourned. S.O. to 25.02.2014.” 3. Thereafter, on 19.8.2014, the order passed read as under, “Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties state that since the parties are family members, they would like to explore the possibility of settlement. S.O. to 4.9.2014.” 4. The subsequent order dated 1.10.2014 was on the lines similar to the order passed on 19.8.2014. 5. Lastly, it appears that on 27.2.2017, the court noticed the state of things in the matter to pass the following order, C/SCA/17908/2013 ORDER “In view of leave note filed by Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, stand over to 6.4.2017. It is hereby made clear that though the present petition is filed in the year 2013, no orders have been passed in the present petition.” 6. Despite the above position obtaining, today when the matter was called court, nobody was present to attend the matter. It could have been dismissed in view of the above readily for want of prosecution. 7. However, in the interest of justice, put up on 4.7.2018.” The petition was thereafter listed on 4.7.2018 and again came to be listed today. Learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. The aforesaid order dated 3.7.2018 is eloquent in itself. Under the circumstances, the only inference is that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Notice is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI