Gujarat High Court
Shantilal Chhaganbhai Radadiya vs State Of Gujarat on 2 February, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/CA/4181/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4181 of 2019
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 25428 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4182 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4183 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4184 of 2019
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4185 of 2019
==========================================================
SHANTILAL CHHAGANBHAI RADADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP and MR.ROHAN SHAH, AGP(1) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 02/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth for the
applicants and learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms.Dhwani Tripathi and learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Rohan Shah in the respective Civil Applications they appear.
2. It is to condone the delay of 92 days, that has occurred in
preferring the First Appeal against the common judgment and
C/CA/4181/2019 ORDER
award dated 4.2.2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Dhoraji in Land References Case No.222 of 2009 to 229
of 2005 as well as in 155 of 2003 to 162 of 2003.
3. Respective appeals are sought to be filed against the
common judgment and award concerning the land reference
cases decided as above.
4. Explaining the delay it is stated that after the delivery of
the judgment and award, the applicant met their advocate for
the purpose of challenging the judgment and award. They
requested the advocate appearing in the trial level to suggest the
name of learned advocate in High Court. In the meantime,
summer vacation intervened. The Court reopened in the second
week of June, 2019. The applicant again contacted the advocate,
thereafter the appeal was preferred and came to be filed. It is in
this process that the delay of 92 days has occurred.
5. The necessary inference is that the applicant had intension
to challenge the common judgment and award right from the
beginning. The applicant immediately consulted the advocate. It
is this process of consultation, taking legal advice and preparing
of the appeal that consumed the time to result into delay of
aforesaid extent.
6. It is trite that on technical ground of delay, the substantive
rights of the parties to challenge their case on merits should not
be defeated. It is well settled that when bonafide cause is shown
the delay should be viewed leniently for condonation.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation
C/CA/4181/2019 ORDER
tendered by the applicants makes out sufficient cause.
Therefore, delay of 92 days in each application is condoned. All
the applications are allowed making rule absolute in each.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Manshi
