M/S Mansi Reality Private Ltd vs Deputy Engineer (O And M), Dakshin ...

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3095 Guj
Judgement Date : 14 February, 2025

Gujarat High Court

M/S Mansi Reality Private Ltd vs Deputy Engineer (O And M), Dakshin ... on 14 February, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/916/2025                            ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025

                                                                                                        undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 916 of 2025
                                                           In
                                    F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33556 of 2024
                                                          With
                                    F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33556 of 2024
                                                            In
                                   R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 of 2017
                                                          With
                               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
                                                           In
                                    F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33556 of 2024
                                                            In
                                   R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 of 2017
                       ==================================================
                                          M/S MANSI REALITY PRIVATE LTD.
                                                         Versus
                         DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M), DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. &
                                                          ANR.
                       ==================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS AKANKSHA A DWIVEDI(12913) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
                                  AGARWAL
                                                  and
                                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

                       Date : 14/02/2025

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) No one is present to press this application even in the revised call. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge filed with the delay of Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:00:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/916/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined 1966 days.

3. A perusal of the record indicates that the present application was presented on 27.11.2024 and was got registered on 11.02.2025. Coming to the explanation furnished seeking condonation of delay in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we may record that the only explanation offered by the appellant is that the appellant was agitating the issues before the different legal Fora and had incurred substantial legal expenditures. For preferring the Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, further legal expenditure was required to be made and hence the appellant did not prefer the Letters Patent Appeal immediately after receipt of the order, subject matter of challenge herein.

4. We may further record that there is a contention in paragraph '6' of the application that a group of Letters Patent Appeals had been preferred before the High Court for the similar issue and the same were allowed. Neither number of the writ petition nor the order passed by this Court allowing the same has been disclosed therein. The further assertion is that the the Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the judgment of this Court which is also bereft of any detail about the judgment or even the date of the judgment. The contention is that being encouraged by the decisions of the Apex Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:00:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/916/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined Court or the High Court, the appellant took legal opinion and gave a notice on 07.08.2024 to the respondent demanding refund of infrastructure development charges. This statement made in paragraph '6' of the application itself indicates that the appellant is a fence-sitter who had slept over the matter and further seeks to approach this Court with vague assertions that others have been granted similar benefits. Besides the above-noted averments, no other submissions have been made giving explanation for the delay of 1966 days.

4. We, therefore, do not fit it a fit case to condone the inordinate unexplained laches on the part of the appellant in filing the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. No order as to cost.

Consequently, the connected Civil Applications also stand disposed of.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Tue Feb 18 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 18 22:00:19 IST 2025