Gujarat High Court
Maganbhai Lakhmanbhai Bhalodiya Decd. ... vs Deputy Collector & 2 on 6 February, 2014
Author: K.M.Thaker
Bench: K.M.Thaker
C/CA/6507/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6507 of 2013
In CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP NO.) NO. 173 of 2013
================================================================
MAGANBHAI LAKHMANBHAI BHALODIYA DECD. THRO
HEIRS....Applicant(s)
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 1.3
MR SAMIR J DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date : 06/02/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicant and learned advocate for the respondent.
2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has waived service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
Page 1 C/CA/6507/2013 ORDER
3. In present application the applicant has prayed, inter alia, that:-
"8(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Civil Application and condone the delay of 291 days in filing the accompanying Revision Application in the interest of substantial justice;"
3.1 To support and justify the request made in the application the applicant has averred, inter alia, that:-
"(3) It is submitted that thus the applicants approached the wrong forum i.e. District Collector by bonafide mistake and hence some time got consumed in pursuing the appeal before the learned District Collector. It is submitted that the time consumed in pursuing the said remedy deserves to be deducted in calculating the delay.
It is submitted that after receiving the letter / communication dated 03.08.2012 from the office of learned District Collector, Rajkot, the applicants took legal advice from the local lawyer and handed over papers to him. It is submitted that the applicants were given impression that their case of filing appeal before this Hon'ble Court is under process and hence the applicants were under bonafide impression that needful is being done by the concerned local lawyer to whom the papers were handed over. It is submitted that it is only recently, when the applicants inquired about the progress of their case, the applicants learnt that the case papers were still lying in the office of the concerned local lawyer and the same were not forwarded to any advocate of this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that thereafter the applicants took advice and met the present lawyer and handed over file only in the month of May, 2013. And hence, some time got consumed in searching lawyer and in arranging for funds also.
(4) It is respectfully stated and submitted that the applicants were arranging for funds and due to which some time got consumed. Also the applicants are not well conversant with laws and hence, they were not aware of the limitation period to file the accompanying revision application."
4. Learned advocate for the respondent opposed Page 2 C/CA/6507/2013 ORDER the application and submitted that the reason mentioned by the applicant to explain delay is not justified and may not be treated as sufficient cause.
5. Any affidavit opposing the application is not filed and the details mentioned by the applicant are not disputed and not controverted and / or denied by the opponent however, aforesaid objection is raised by learned advocate for the respondent at the time of hearing.
6. Having regard to the reasons mentioned by the applicant in present application and considering the fact that against the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector the applicant had approached the Collector against the order which, as per provision under the Act, is wrong forum and therefore, the said authority returned the papers to the applicant is, not said to be factually incorrect and is not disputed / controverted and denied.
Page 3 C/CA/6507/2013 ORDER 6.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is justification in the explanation (i.e. the explanation that the petitioner was prosecuting the matter before wrong forum) by the petitioner.
6.2 Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it appears that the interest of justice would be served if the applicant is allowed to contest the petition on merits when the respondent can raise all contentions available in law against petition in support of the order which is passed by the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector.
Therefore, below mentioned order is passed:-
Delay of 291 days caused in preferring Civil Revision Application is condoned.
The application is allowed in terms of paragraph No. 8(B). Orders accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Office may take steps to list Civil Revision Page 4 C/CA/6507/2013 ORDER Application for hearing.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Suresh* Page 5