Gujarat High Court
Vijaysinh vs Khedbrahma on 13 October, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15703/2003 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15703 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
VIJAYSINH
SHYAMSINH PAVAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KHEDBRAHMA
NAGRIK SAHKARI BANKLTD. & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
NOTICE
SERVED for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DEVANG VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NIKUL K
SONI for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 13/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-original appellant to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal dated 07/10/2003 in Miscellaneous Application No. 73/2003 by which the learned tribunal has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay in preferring the Appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees dated 23/01/2003 in Summary Lavad Suit No. 1213/2003.
2. It appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees dated 23/01/2003 in Summary Lavad Suit No. 1213/2003, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal and there was a delay of approximately 193 days in preferring the Appeal and, therefore, the petitioner submitted Miscellaneous Application No. 73/2003 requesting to condone the delay. Instead of considering whether there was sufficient cause made out to condone the delay or not the learned tribunal considered the Appeal on merits without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and by the impugned order has refused to condone the delay mainly on the ground that there is no merit in the Appeal. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while considering the delay condonation application, normally the merits of the Appeal/case is not required to be considered and if it is considered, in that case, some opportunity is required to be given to the party to submit the case on merits even prima facie.
3. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay cannot be sustained and the same deserves to quash and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned tribunal for considering the Appeal in accordance with law and on its own merits.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned tribunal dated 07/10/2003 in Miscellaneous Application No. 73/2003 is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay caused in preferring the Appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Summary Lavad Suit No. 1213/2003 is hereby condoned. The learned tribunal is now to directed to decide and dispose of the Appeal and consider the said Appeal against the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees in Summary Lavad Suit 1213/2002 on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as the judgment and award passed by the learned Board of Nominees is of the year 2003, the learned tribunal is directed to decide and dispose of the said Appeal on merits at the earliest but not later than nine months from the date of receipt of the present order. It will be open for the petitioner to submit an appropriate application for interim relief, which be considered by the learned tribunal in accordance with law and on its own merits. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji Top