Gujarat High Court
Nstpl Hits Unit vs Rasikbhai Ambabhai Patel on 5 February, 2020
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
C/CRA/36807/2018 IA ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1 of 2018
In F/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 36807 of 2018
==========================================================
NSTPL HITS UNIT Versus RASIKBHAI AMBABHAI PATEL ========================================================== Appearance:
MR VIKRAM J THAKOR for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR MONAL S CHAGLANI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI Date : 05/02/2020 IA ORDER
1. The revision application is sought to be filed with a delay of 220 days with following explanation:
"2. The impugned order is dated 20.01.2018 but the applicants were not aware about the same because of the communication gap between the applicants and their advocate. The father of the applicant no.2 was extremely sick suffering from untreatable Cancer during the period of 201718. Because of serious illness ultimately father of the applicant no.2 unfortunately passed away on 05.03.2018. A copy of the death certificate of Dr. J.K. Jain father of the applicant no.2 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure I. It is submitted that because of serious terminal sickness of the father of the applicant no.2, applicants could not remain appraised with the status of the case. As stated above since father of the applicant died on 05.03.2018, the applicant no.2 and all family members were in deep shock and grief because of which also could not contact the concerned advocate. However in the month of September 2018 upon making inquiry with the local advocate who was appearing in the lower court on behalf of the applicants, it was informed that application Exh. 16 filed by the applicants is rejected by the learned Civil Judge by impugned order dated 20.01.2018. Thereafter the learned Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 02:31:32 IST 2020 C/CRA/36807/2018 IA ORDER advocate was requested to send the certified copy of the impugned order. Having received the certified copy of the impugned order from the learned advocate, the above numbered revision application is filed. In these circumstances the delay has occurred.
2. According to the learned counsel for the opponent though Mr. Ankur Jain was authorized signatory in the proceedings in the court below, entire case was handled by Mr. Ranbir Das and thus Mr. Ranbir Das was available as the person authorized to move civil revision application within a period of limitation. It is however not clear from the submissions of the learned counsel for the opponent that Ranbir Das was also authorized signatory of the company. In absence of such details, it is difficult to accept the submission that Ranbir Das could have represented the company on mere ground that he participated in the proceedings in the lower court.
3.1 It is not in dispute that Mr. Ankur Jain was the authorized signatory and it is he who is before this court in this civil application and therefore notwithstanding Mr. Ankur Jain appearing in the case on behalf of the company in the suit, the application can be said to have been validly filed by the applicant no.2 herein.
4. In the opinion of this court, delay is not inordinate so as to non suit the applicant. It is settled law that if the delay is not inordinate, the court would adopt the liberal approach since the party pursuing the litigation would be more interested in merits of the case rather than deliberately delaying it with a burden to explain the same.
5. In the instant case, within nine month after death of father of the applicant no.2 i.e. in September 2018, the revision application has been Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 02:31:32 IST 2020 C/CRA/36807/2018 IA ORDER instituted. The said delay is sought to be explained by stating that the applicant's father was suffering from cancer and applicant was looking after him as also the communication gap from the advocate delayed the revision and applicant learnt about the impugned order upon inquiry and eventually after seeking legal advice revision application was filed. Thus in the opinion of this court, the case is made out for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. Application is granted. Rule is made absolute.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J) niru* Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 02:31:32 IST 2020