Gujarat High Court
Dinaben Lucasbhai Macwana W/O Late ... vs Daudbhai Benardbhai Chauhan Through ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3350/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3350 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1252 of 2025
==========================================================
DINABEN LUCASBHAI MACWANA W/O LATE DAUDBHAI BENARDBHAI
CHAUHAN
Versus
DAUDBHAI BENARDBHAI CHAUHAN THROUGH HIS PROPOSED LEGAL
HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.AAKASH K MODH(9791) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT P SOLIYA(10780) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 07/08/2025
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 757 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Anand in Family Suit No.16 of 2020.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of para-2 to 5 of the application, wherein it stated that there are genuine and sufficient reason for not filing the First Appeal before this Hon'ble court within limitation and therefore, the delay of 757 Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3350/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined days caused in filing the present First Appeal is required to be condoned by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of Justice.
3. It is submitted that the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of the Judgment and Decree. The applicant was desirous of preferring the appeal; however, as the applicant is approximately 70 years of age and has been facing significant health and medical issues, she was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed period. Additionally, the applicant was unaware of the Family Suit No. 16 of 2020, filed under Section 10(1)-(7) and Section 10(1)-(9) of the Divorce Act, 1869, before the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, Anand. It is submitted that after the demise of her husband, the respondent no.1, on 23.02.2024, and after a lapse of six to seven months, that the applicant's son discovered case papers pertaining to Family Suit No. 16 of 2020. Upon further inquiry with the concerned court, the applicant came to know about the ex-parte order that had been passed. Subsequently, the applicant and her family were engaged in searching for an appropriate advocate to represent her and pursue the present appeal before this Hon'ble Court at Ahmedabad and thus it will be seen that there is no willful neglect or lethargy in preferring the Appeal before this Hon'ble court and therefore delay requires to be condoned in the interest of justice.
4. It is submitted that upon getting certified copy, applicant came to know that the matter is delayed. The applicant states that there is no willful negligence or lethargy on the part of the applicant in pursuing his remedy and therefore the delay caused in preferring the present application requires to be condoned in the interest of justice. The Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3350/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined applicant further states and submits that the applicant reasonably hopes to succeed in the appeal and the applicant reasonably hopes that she has a strong case on merits and it is therefore submitted that the delay is required to be condoned as per the decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court.
5. In light of these circumstances, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but is due to the aforementioned reasons.
6. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
7. Learned advocate for the respondent formally opposes the grant of application.
8. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 757 days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as inordinate.
9. Considering the submissions and the contents of the para mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained sufficiently.
10. 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3350/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined delay was discussed.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The delay of 757 days caused in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Anand in Family Suit No.16 of 2020 is hereby condoned.
12. The Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) PARESH SOMPURA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR PARESH J SOMPURA(HC00451) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:08:57 IST 2025