Gujarat High Court
Vipulkumar Parshottambhai Chauhan vs Ramanlal Narsinhbhai Chauhan on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1528/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1528
of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 303 of 2025
==========================================================
VIPULKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI CHAUHAN
Versus
RAMANLAL NARSINHBHAI CHAUHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR TEJAS D SHUKLA(5312) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 40 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No.131 of 2017.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that owing to the poverty of the applicant , they could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation and a reasonable amount of time was consumed in arranging the requisite court fees and other Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:54:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1528/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined expenses for preferring the appeal. Therefore, a delay of 40 days has occurred in filing the appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 Mr Tanmay B Karia submitted that considering the facts 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 applicants, 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 40 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) CDP Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:54:11 IST 2025