Ravjibhai Savjibhai Koli ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 1548 Guj

         C/CA/4203/2019                                           ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4203 of 2019

                   In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 25386 of 2019

==========================================================
                 RAVJIBHAI SAVJIBHAI KOLI (PADALIYA)
                               Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TUSHAR L SHETH(3920) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.DHWANI TRIPATHI, 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 for the respondent State.

2. It is to condone the delay of 29 days, that has occurred in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.2.2019 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji in Land References Case No.186 of 2007.

3. 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,

C/CA/4203/2019 ORDER

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 29 days has occurred.

4. The necessary inference is that the applicant had intension to challenge the 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.

5. 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.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation tendered by the applicant makes out sufficient cause.

7. Therefore, delay of 29 days is condoned. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Manshi