Gujarat High Court
Mahmad Ibrahim Hingora vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11724 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11733 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11777 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11802 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
MAHMAD IBRAHIM HINGORA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHIT S BHATT(12874) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SHAILESH DESAI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 25/08/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shailesh Desai waives service of notice of the Rule for the respondents.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined
2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. As far as possible, parties would be referred as per their original position in the suit.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Harshit S. Bhatt for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shailesh Desai for the respondents.
4. As such, all these bench of writ applications, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the original plaintiffs, who aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court in each case, whereby it has condoned the delay of the respondent-State while filing Regular Civil Appeal in each case with cost.
5. After arguing for some time, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt, under the instructions of his client, does not invite reasons so far as the reasons assigned by the Appellate Court while condoning the delay, but restricting his argument to the fact that the costs which has been awarded of Rs.5,000/- in each case, while condoning the delay around 820 days could be too meager the costs.
5.1. According to learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt, considering the entire set of facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the respondents herein have never appeared and contested Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined the suit before the Trial Court, whereby an ex parte decree came to be passed. It is submitted that there was complete lack of communication between the respondents vis-a-vis the Government Pleader Office of Bhuj and due to such, sufferer is the petitioners only. It is further submitted that even after securing the decree, plaintiffs will have to face the appeal proceedings because of the negligent act of the respondents, for which each plaintiff should be duly compensated by adequately granting cost.
5.2. So, making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt would request that this Court should at least increase the costs which has been awarded by the Appellate Court while condoning the delay, which meet with the ends of justice.
6. Per Contra, learned AGP Mr. Desai, at the outset, stick to the fact that due to less number of assistant government pleaders in the district of Kutch, more particularly in at Civil Court, Naliya, having no assistant government pleader, suit could not have been defended by the respondent-State. 6.1. Nonetheless, learned AGP Mr. Desai would further submit that on getting knowledge about the passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the Trial Court, vide letter dated 24th April 2023 and 5th June 2023, respondents have Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined requested the Government Leader's Office at Bhuj-Kutch to file an appeal, but due to less number of Assistant Government Pleaders, it could not be filed for little long time, but there was no malafide intention on the part of the respondents not to file the appeal. He has shown total number of Assistant Government Pleader appointed @ Bhuj which appears too less vis-à-vis huge area of District-Kutch. 6.2. At last, learned AGP Mr. Desai would request this Court not to interfere with the order of costs, but left to the discretion of the Court to pass an appropriate order so far as quantum of costs so awarded by the Appellate Court.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, prima facie, it appears that despite service of notice upon the respondents, they chosen not to appear, thereby, Trial Court passed ex parte judgment and decree. According to some of the observations so made by Appellate Court and so also it is case of the respondents that the land is very precious land and the right of the respondents would have been affected, if delay in filing the appeal, if not condoned. It is also taken note of the fact that there are less number of Assistant Government Pleader @ Bhuj-Kutch. So, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court exercised its positive Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined discretion, thereby condoned the delay in filing the appeal. As such, the petitioners are not inviting any reasons so far as ultimate conclusion of condoning the delay by the Appellate Court is concerned, this Court not further discussed anything on it.
8. Nevertheless, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt restricted his arguments qua the costs which has been awarded by the Appellate Court while considering the delay is too less. According to my view, considering the fact that there was some lapses on the part of respondent-State in prosecuting the legal remedy and due to any reasons, wherein, no blame can be pointed out to the petitioner for pursuing his legal remedy i.e. filing the civil suit and secured the decree, now, the appeal proceedings are required to be defended by them, for which they are required to be reasonably compensated in terms of money.
9. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, reasons and considering the nature of controversy involved in the matter and so also, there is no specific reasons assigned by the Appellate Court while awarding the cost of Rs.5000/-, this Court deem it appropriate to enhance such amount of costs to Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/ in each matter. According to this Court, such amount would be a reasonable costs Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined which can compensate each petitioners/plaintiffs in terms of money, thereby they can effectively defend the appeal proceedings instituted by the respondents after lapse of more than two years.
10. The respondent-State is hereby directed to pay an additional sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners/plaintiffs to be paid, on or before 30th September, 2025. Such amount either be paid directly to each plaintiff in their respective bank account or to deposit with Appellate Court concern but same shall have to be done on or before 30th September, 2025. Once, such additional costs will be paid/deposited by the respondent-State, the Appellate Court shall register the each appeal and thereafter decide it in accordance with law as early as possible. In a case where, such additional cost will be deposited with Appellate Court, same shall be paid/credited to each plaintiff on proper verification albeit, in accordance with law.
11. At last, it has been drawn attention of this court by the learned advocate Mr. Bhatt that while condoning the delay, the Appellate Court has touched upon the merits of the matter, which it could not have done so. The argument canvased by learned advocate Mr. Bhatt requires some consideration, inasmuch as it is settled legal position of law Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11724/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined that while condoning the delay, the court should not touch upon the merits of the matter.
12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall not be influenced by its any of the observations so made while condoning the delay and shall decide the lis between the parties strictly in accordance with law.
13. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by Appellate Court in each matter is modify to the aforesaid extent i.e. costs enhanced to Rs. 15,000/ instead of Rs. 5,000/. Consequently, all these impugned writ applications are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Tue Aug 26 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 26 22:00:28 IST 2025