Gujarat High Court
Kuntal Chandrakantbhai Mevada vs Archana W/O Kuntal Mevada D/O ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2156/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2156 of
2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6987 of 2025
================================================================
KUNTAL CHANDRAKANTBHAI MEVADA
Versus
ARCHANA W/O KUNTAL MEVADA D/O NARENDRABHAI SHANTILAL
SIDDHAPURA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH M SURTI(3907) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT R PANDYA(543) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Bharat Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 37 days in preferring the appeal against judgment and decree dated 24.10.2024 the Judge, Family Court No.7, Rajkot in Family Suit No.1848 of 2017.
3. Notice was issued on 21.04.2025 returnable on Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:40:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2156/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined 23.06.2025. In response to the notice issued, learned Advocate Mr.Bharat Pandya appears for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of para-2 of the application, wherein it stated that the applicant is the only son and mother of the applicant is not keeping good health and there was some delay in obtaining certified copy of the impugned order and hence, some delay has occurred.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent formally opposes the grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 37 days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as inordinate.
7. Considering the submissions and the contents of the application mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained sufficiently.
8. 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 Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:40:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2156/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined discussed.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The delay of 37 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
10. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) SHITOLE Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Thu Jul 03 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 04 00:40:30 IST 2025