Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, Actg. C.J. - (1.) INTERLOCUTORY Application No. 3005 of 2012 has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 384 days, in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this L.P.A. We, therefore, condone the delay in preferring this L.P.A. No. 389 of 2012.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , I.A. No. 3005 of 2012 is allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 4869 of 2013 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred for deletion of the name of respondent No. 7 from the array of respondents in Letters Patent Appeal as respondent No. 7 has already retired. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this interlocutory application is allowed at the risk of the present appellant. Counsel for the appellant is permitted to delete respondent No. 7 from the array of respondents in L.P.A. No. 389 of 2012. Necessary amendment shall be carried out by red ink.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I.A. No. 4869 of 2013 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 389 of 2012 1. Registry is directed to enlist L.P.A. No. 389 of 2012 under the heading "For Admission" on 19th August, 2013.;