Gujarat High Court
Junedmiya Farooqmiya Malek vs Ritik Jayeshbhai Patel on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3402 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 18724 of 2025
==========================================================
JUNEDMIYA FAROOQMIYA MALEK
Versus
RITIK JAYESHBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 58 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2024 passed in M.A.C.P.No.174 of 2022.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant did not have sufficient means to pay the court fees and other expenses involved in preferring the appeal, and therefore, could arrange the same only after the disbursement of the amount by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that thereafter, the applicant contacted his lawyer for preferring the appeal. In this process, a delay of 58 days has Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:09:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined occurred in filing the appeal. He further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide, but has occasioned due to the reasons stated in the application, more particularly in Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6.
4. On the other hand, Mr.G.C.Mazmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an appropriate order may be passed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having regard to the poverty of the applicant, who could not arrange the necessary funds for preferring an appeal within the period of limitation, in my considered opinion, constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353], the delay of 58 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. The present Civil Application stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:09:15 IST 2025