Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mangubhai Kikbhai Halpati Decdthro' ... on 2 August, 2010
Author: A.M.Kapadia
Bench: A.M.Kapadia
@))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION No 5463 of 2001
in
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER)No 7274 of 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANGUBHAI KIKBHAI HALPATI DECDTHRO' HEIRS SHANTABEN M PATEL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Civil Application No. 5463 of 2001
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Petitioner No. 1-2
.......... for Respondent No. 1
MR JB PARDIWALA for Respondent No. 1/1-1/2,2
RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1/3
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
Date of Order: 25/11/2002
ORAL ORDER
By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, applicants, State of Gujarat and Mamlatdar Shree, Navsari have prayed to condone the delay of 20 days caused in filing the above First Appeal (Stamp Number) 7274 of 2000 which is directed against the judgement and decree dated June 30, 2000 rendered in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1991 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Navsari, by which the suit filed by the applicants came to be dismissed, on the grounds stated in the application.
2.The reason as to why the appeal could not be filed in time are detailed in paragraph 1 of the application which talk about intra-department inter-department procedure which has caused the delay in filing the application. There was no negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the matter. The appellants have never abandoned the lis and therefore, it is prayed to condone the delay.
3.Respondents are duly served. Mr. J.B.Pardiwala, learned advocate appears for them and states that appropriate order may be passed having regard to the settled law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the matters of; (i) State of Bihar & Others v. Kamleshwar Prasad Singh & another, 2000 AIR SCW 2388 (para 11 to 14 of the reported judgement, (ii) N.Balakrishnan v. M Krishnanmurthy, Judgement Today 1998 (6) SC 242, (iii) State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Others, AIR 1996 SC 1623, (iv) Spl. Tehsildars, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V.Ayisumma, AIR 1996 SC 2750, (v) Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 681, (vi) P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & another (1997) 7 SCC 566 and (vii) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and other relevant decisions on the point.
4.Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, and more particularly uncontroverted versions on which the delay is sought to be condoned, I am satisfied that sufficient cause is made out by the applicants for condonation of delay. The record does not indicate that there was any inaction or negligence on the part of the applicants in prosecuting the appeal. The explanation for delay offered by the applicants is not only plausible but acceptable and, therefore, the application deserves to be granted.
5.For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds. Delay caused in filing the above numbered appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to register the appeal and notify the First Appeal for admission hearing on 9.12.2002.
(A.M.Kapadia,J) Jayanti*