Gujarat High Court
Narendrasinh Rajusinh Bihola vs Kailasben Rameshbhai Mangalbhai Sodha ... on 1 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3166/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3166 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15693 of 2025
=======================================================================
NARENDRASINH RAJUSINH BIHOLA
Versus
KAILASBEN RAMESHBHAI MANGALBHAI SODHA PARMAR
=======================================================================
Appearance:
DEV D PATEL(8264) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 01/08/2025
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal against judgment and decree dated 13.01.2025 the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kheda at Nadiad in Family Suit No.113 of 2023.
2. Rule was issued on 13.06.2025 returnable on 27.06.2025. In response to the Rule, learned Advocate Mr.Kurven Desai appears for the respondent.
3. Learned Advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of para-3 to 6 of the application and submitted that there is delay of 13 days in approaching this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent formally opposes the grant of application.
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:49:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3166/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/08/2025 undefined
5. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 13 days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as inordinate.
6. Considering the submissions and the contents of the application mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained sufficiently.
7. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and others vs/. Union of India and Another, reported in, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein the term "Sufficient Cause" was interpreted and the approach of Courts while deciding application for condonation of delay was discussed.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The delay of 13 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
9. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) SHITOLE Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Mon Aug 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 04 21:49:40 IST 2025