Gujarat High Court
Nayak Chiragbhai Chandrakantbhai vs Nayak Deepikaben Kanaiyalal on 7 July, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/896/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 896 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 33962 of 2024
================================================================
NAYAK CHIRAGBHAI CHANDRAKANTBHAI
Versus
NAYAK DEEPIKABEN KANAIYALAL
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. D. J. PATEL(16464) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHYAM M SHAH(11348) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant for condoning the delay of 158 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Mehsana in Family Suit No.97 of 2021.
2. It is reported that the rule is served and learned advocate Shyam Shah has appeared.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of para-2 to 4 of the application, wherein it stated that after the impugned judgment and decree, it took some time to obtain certified copy and to take legal advice and contact the advocate and to arrange papers for Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:26:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/896/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined the appeal and hence, the delay is not intentional and wailful. It is submitted that the applicant could not contact his advocate within prescribed time and hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent formally opposes the grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 158 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 para 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 discussed.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:26:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/896/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The delay of 158 days in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Mehsana in Family Suit No.97 of 2021 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) SIDDHARTH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 23:26:33 IST 2025