AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present as under:
Mr. Prashant Pandit along with Mr. Jay Pandit, Counsel for Appellant.
Mr. A.B. Shinde, Counsel for Respondent No.1.
Mr Sheelang Shah, i/b Mr. Nasoom Shah, Counsel for Respondent No.2/Auction Purchaser.
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by the appellant for seeking urgent relief.
Heard on I.A. 485/2026 for amendment in the memo of appeal.
The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank submits that he does not desire to file any reply to I.A. No. 485/2026.
During the course of arguments, it has transpired before this Appellate Tribunal that by way of the proposed amendment in the prayer clause, the City Surveyor and Superintendent, Vadodara-2, are sought to be restrained from allowing the application of the Respondent for changing the ownership rights.
However, neither in the original Memo of Appeal nor in the proposed amendment are the City Surveyor and Superintendent, Vadodara-2 impleaded as parties to the proceedings. In the absence of the said authorities being parties to the appeal, the proposed amendment cannot be permitted.
At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present application.
Not objected to by the Respondents.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 485/2026 is dismissed as withdrawn.
List the case on 25.11.2026 for further proceedings.