SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 10767

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
Jahurmohammad @ Babubhai Sharfuddin Nagori – Appellant
Versus
Gulamnabi Sharfuddin Nagori – Respondent
F/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 11602 of 2026 | F/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 11698 of 2026 | F/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 11763 of 2026 | F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36703 of 2023 | F/TAX APPEAL NO. 11273 of 2026 | F/TAX APPEAL NO. 8659 of 2026 | F/TAX APPEAL NO. 8662 of 2026 | F/TAX APPEAL NO. 8800 of 2026 | F/TAX APPEAL NO. 9383 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11466 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11471 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11488 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11493 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11497 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11506 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11516 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11528 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11530 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11534 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11546 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4461 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11069 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11551 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11070 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11555 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11558 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11559 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11562 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11564 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11566 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11568 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11571 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11577 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11580 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11582 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11071 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11588 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11589 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11590 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11591 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11592 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11593 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11204 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9512 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11628 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11634 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11618 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11637 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11639 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11641 of 2026 | F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 11675 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11682 of 2026 | F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 11691 of 2026 | F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11708 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11713 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 10815 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11717 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11722 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11725 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7517 of 2026 | F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 11736 of 2026 | F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 11770 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sangita M. Chauhan

Parties are under a mandatory obligation to comply with procedural office objections within the stipulated time prescribed by the court, and failure to do so results in the matter being placed before the presiding judge for final orders.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VI - Pleadings - Removal of office objections - Non-compliance with court directives - The court mandated that office objections must be removed within a specified timeframe, failing which the matter, despite the volume of consolidated applications, would be placed before the Presiding Judge for further adjudication. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
The matter involves a large number of consolidated appeals, civil applications, and revision petitions involving various parties. Upon reviewing the office note, it was observed that the parties had failed to comply with existing office objections within the stipulated timeframe prescribed by the High Court Registry.

Findings of Court:
The Court granted a final opportunity of four weeks for the parties to rectify all pending office objections. It was directed that all captioned matters be treated with this order, and failure to comply would result in mandatory placement before the High Court for dismissal or further appropriate orders.

Issues: Whether the persistent failure to remove office objections in a consolidated set of long-pending procedural matters warrants further extension or judicial intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural compliance is essential for the efficiency of the judicial process. Where parties fail to remove objections within a fixed period, the court provides a peremptory period to ensure finality, balancing the right to be heard with the necessity of timely litigation management.

Result: Extension of four weeks granted to remove office objections, failing which matters to be placed before the Court.

CORAM: ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

Date : 17/04/2026

COMMON ORAL ORDER

On perusal of office note dated 17.04.2026, the office objections have not been removed within stipulated period. Hence, the office objections are ordered to be removed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the matter shall be placed before the Hon’ble Court.

The office is directed to place the copy of this order in each of the captioned matters.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top