Gujarat High Court
M/S. Sanjay C Baxi vs Bhavana Indravadan Dave on 18 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1186 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2630 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1196 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2661 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1197 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2646 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1199 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2675 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1200 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2682 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1201 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2670 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1202 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2628 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1203 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2644 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1205 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2666 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1206 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2648 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1214 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2640 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1215 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2707 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1216 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2738 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1217 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2741 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1221 of 2025
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2632 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1222 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2652 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1223 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2657 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1224 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2642 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1225 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2638 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1226 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2700 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1230 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2745 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1231 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2678 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1232 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2709 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1233 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2705 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1241 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2650 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1242 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2671 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1243 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2702 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1244 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2736 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1245 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2674 of 2025
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025
undefined
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1246 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2636 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1247 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2634 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1248 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2684 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1249 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 2731 of 2025
==========================================================
M/S. SANJAY C BAXI
Versus
BHAVANA INDRAVADAN DAVE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE MR. S. N. SOPARKAR FOR MS MRINAL
BHATNAGAR(12719) for the applicant(s) no. 1
VASIM MANSURI(8824) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR C B UPADHYAYA(3508) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. PRACHITI SHAH FOR MR.SAURIN MEHTA for the Respondent(s) No. 2
(IN C.A. NOS.1186/202 & 1249/2025)
MR.RITIK JAIN FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 (IN C.A. NO.1242/2025 IN
CROSS OBJECTION NO.2671 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.384 OF 2020)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/11/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed for condonation of delay of 514 days in filing the cross-objections in the captioned first appeal.
2. It is contended by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. N. Soparkar for learned advocate Ms. Bhatnagar for the applicant that the learned Civil Court has held that respondent No.2 is the holder in due course of the subject shares. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was relegated to respondent No.1 - Company to decide whether the shares are required to be transferred in the name of respondent No.2 or not. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined Soparkar submits that subsequently, the defendant No.2 has approached defendant No.1 - Company and requested to transfer the suit shares. However, despite continuous reminders, the shares had not been transferred and therefore, the cross- objections are filed before this Court. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar that the first appeals were admitted by this Court vide its order dated 02.08.2023 and therefore, the limitation would start from that day, as per the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge and Others V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka reported in (2011) 6 SCC 321 and as applicant could not file the cross- objection within the prescribed time of 30 days; therefore, the present application is filed for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar that delay caused in filing the cross-objections is required to be viewed liberally, more particularly in view of reasonable and sufficient explanation are offered and it is submitted as the first appeals are not heard finally, therefore, delay of 514 days is required to be condoned.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Prachiti Shah for learned advocate Mr. Saurin Mehta for the respondent No.2 has not opposed the application for condonation of delay but learned advocate Mr. Upadhyaya for the respondent No.1 has opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that the limitation would start from the date when the first hearing was took place i.e. on 30.01.2020. Learned advocates submit that the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined applicant has participated in the hearing and was having the knowledge with regard to the filing of the first appeal. It is submitted by the learned advocates that, in fact, the cross- objection itself is not maintainable as the applicant has not raised any claim before the learned Civil Court and in that background, the application for condonation of delay is required to be dismissed.
4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Govind Gharge (Supra), more particularly paragraph Nos.59 and 60, which read as under.
"59. If we examine the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code in its correct perspective and in light of the abovestated principles then the period of limitation of one month stated therein would commence from the service of notice of the day of hearing of appeal on the respondent in that appeal. The hearing contemplated under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code normally is the final hearing of the appeal but this rule is not without any exception. The exception could be where a party respondent appears at the time of admission of the appeal, as a caveator or otherwise and argues the appeal on merits as well as while passing of interim orders and the Court has admitted the appeal in the presence of that party and directs the appeal to be heard finally on a future date actual or otherwise, then it has to be taken as complete compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code and thereafter, the appellant who has appeared himself or through his pleader cannot claim that period mentioned under the said provision of the Code would commence only when the respondent is served with a fresh notice of hearing of the appeal in the required format. If this argument is accepted it would amount to travesty of justice and inevitably result in delay while causing serious prejudice to the interest of the parties and administration of justice. Such interpretation would run contra to the legislative intent behind the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code which explicitly contemplate that an appeal shall be heard expeditiously and disposed of as far as possible within 60 days at the admission stage. All the provisions of Order 41 of the Code have to be read Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined conjunctively to give Order 41 Rule 22 its true and purposive meaning.
60. Having analytically examined the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22, we may now state the principles for its applications as follow:
(a) The Respondent in an appeal is entitled to receive a notice of hearing of the appeal as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code;
(b) The limitation of one month for filing the cross-objection as provided under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code shall commence from the date of service of notice on him or his pleader of the day fixed for hearing the appeal.
(c) Where a respondent in the appeal is a caveator or otherwise puts in appearance himself and argues the appeal on merits including for the purposes of interim order and the appeal is ordered to be heard finally on a date fixed subsequently or otherwise, in presence of the said respondent/caveator, it shall be deemed to be service of notice within the meaning of Order 41 Rule 22. In other words the limitation of one month shall start from that date."
4.1. Considering the above ratio, the period of limitation of one month would commence from the date on which notice of the hearing is served upon the respondent in the appeal, or where the appellant appears in person or through his pleader, from the date of admission of the appeal. Therefore, in the present case, the limitation would begin to run from the date of admission, i.e. 02.08.2023.
4.2. In view of the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, wherein it has been held that procedural laws are primarily intended to advance the cause of justice and not to close the doors of justice at the very threshold, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the expression 'ends of justice' necessarily Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined encompasses justice to all parties to the litigation. It would be unfair to interpret any provision in a manner that vests a right in one party at the cost of another, particularly when the provision neither expressly nor impliedly contemplates such a consequence.
4.3 It is further held that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure are akin to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. When such provisions bar a remedy to one party by efflux of time, they simultaneously confer a consequential advantage to the other parties. Before such vested benefit can be taken away, the Court is required to strike a balance between the competing rights of the parties, on a plain interpretation of the statutory provision, so as to meet the ends of justice.
4.4 In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and proper to permit the filing of the cross- objections and to condone the delay of 514 days
5. So far as the second objection raised by the learned advocate Mr. Upadhyaya for the respondent No.1 with regard to the maintainability of the cross-objections is concerned, this Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chandra V/s. Union of India, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 625, wherein it is held as under;
"22. This Court in Commr. v. Labour Commr. [Commr. v. Labour Commr., (2009) 3 SCC 525 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 876] has taken a view that while deciding an application Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. It has been further held : (SCC p. 526, para 5) "5. While deciding an application for condonation of delay, it is well settled that the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and would have only seen whether sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it. We ourselves have also examined the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the High Court and, in our opinion, the delay of 178 days has been properly explained by the appellant. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal filed before the High Court is restored to its original file. The High Court is requested to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order."
5.1 In view of the above ratio, this Court is of the opinion that, while considering an application for condonation of delay, this Court is not required to enter into the merits of the matter and is only to examine whether sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the ends of justice would be met by condoning the delay.
6. The application seeking condonation of delay of 514 days in preferring the cross-objections is required to be allowed; however, it is clarified that the issue with regard to the maintainability of the cross-objections shall be considered at the stage of final hearing of the cross-objections.
Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1186/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/11/2025 undefined
7. Resultantly, the present application is allowed. The delay of 514 days caused in filing the cross-objections in the captioned first appeal is hereby condoned.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 20:48:38 IST 2025