Gujarat High Court
Karamshibhai Jakshibhai Rabari vs Legal Heirs Of Late Priyavadan ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3751/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3751 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 13736 of 2024
================================================================
KARAMSHIBHAI JAKSHIBHAI RABARI
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE PRIYAVADAN JASHVANTLAL BHATT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT P PATEL(3498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
M/S.VYAS ASSOCIATES(1559) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR JAYDEVSINH CHUDASAMA(13128) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR PREM D DAVE(10958) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR. SHALIN J PATEL(14556) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 168 days in preferring the appeal.
2. It is reported that the rule issued by this Court under order dated 16.07.2024 is served and learned advocate Mr. Jaydevsinh Chudasma has appeared on behalf on behalf of respondent Nos.1.1 and 1.2 and learned advocate Mr. Shalin Patel appeared on behalf of respondent No.4.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:50:53 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3751/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of para-2 of the application, wherein it stated that the applicant applied for certified copy of the order on 10.08.2023 ann after receiving the same the appeal is filed on 20.04.2024.It is submitted that the applicant is a poor agriculturist and hence, he was not aware about the judgment and order. Thereafter, the applicant took advice from the advocate and after arranging the funds, the applicant engaged an advocate to file appeal. Hence, some delay has occurred in filing the appeal.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Learned advocates for the respondent formally oppose the grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 168 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 Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:50:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3751/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The delay of 168 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (J. L. ODEDRA, J) SIDDHARTH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:50:53 IST 2025