Gujarat High Court
Pinalben Jigneshbhai Mistry D/O. ... vs Jigneshbhai Sureshbhai Mistry on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4581/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4581 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24954 of 2024
================================================================
PINALBEN JIGNESHBHAI MISTRY D/O. BHAILALBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
JIGNESHBHAI SURESHBHAI MISTRY
================================================================
Appearance:
DHWANI Y CHANDARANA(8383) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bharuch in Family Suit No.44 of 2022.
2. It is reported that the rule is served however, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of para-2 of the application, wherein it stated that after the impugned judgment, the applicant has approached the legal service of Court below and she was advised to prefer appeal before this Court and accordingly submitted all necessary documents to Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:16:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4581/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined advocate assigned by legal aid committee and certified copy of the order was delivered to the applicant and during this process, some delay has occurred. Learned advocate makes a statement that the service has been effected as the same has been refused by the respondent and report in this connection shall be filed by learned advocate with the Registry of this Court.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 24 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 para 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.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:16:58 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4581/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bharuch in Family Suit No.44 of 2022 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) SIDDHARTH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:16:58 IST 2025