PUNJILAXMI HIRALAL PARIKH Vs. BARODA URBAN DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was filed in December 1992 for the following substantive prayers:

(2.) UPON the allegations of the learned advocate for the petitioners, notice was issued to the petitioners for engaging another advocate. The notice has come unserved with the remarks that respondent no. 2 has expired and respondent no. 1 is not found.

(3.) HAVING regard to the subject matter of the petition and the fact that respondent no. 2 has expired and respondent no. 1 has not been found and heirs of the deceased respondent have not come forward to prosecute the challenge raised in the petition, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this petition pending.