Nandkunwar Association vs Manjhulaben Ratilal And Bros
2021 Latest Caselaw 1005 Guj

        C/CA/1768/2019                                        ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1768 of 2019
               In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6469 of 2019
==========================================================
                  NANDKUNWAR ASSOCIATION
                             Versus
               MANJHULABEN RATILAL AND BROS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.10,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9
SERVED BY PUBLICATION IN NEWS(75) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                         Date : 21/01/2021

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.Chirayu Mehta for the applicants. The respondents are shown to have been served by mode of publication in the newspaper.

2. The applicants herein are desirous to challenge judgment and decree dated 28th December, 2017 passed in Special Civil Suit No.9 of 1997 by learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Mirzapur. The applicants were not the parties to the said suit. They preferred separate application being Civil Application No.1612 of 2019 seeking leave to appeal.

2.1 It may be mentioned at the outset that the said application for leave to appeal has been granted

C/CA/1768/2019 ORDER

by order of even date, permitting the applicants to prefer appeal against the aforementioned judgment and decree.

3. It is in preferring of the First Appeal against the judgment and decree as above, that the delay of 279 days has occurred. The present applicants seek condonation thereof.

4. It is stated on oath that the applicants did not have the knowledge of passing of judgment and decree by the court. It is further stated that after acquiring the knowledge, the applicants approached the advocate and they were asked to collect relevant papers. It is stated that in consulting learned advocate and in preparing appeal the time was consumed, which resulted into delay of 279 days.

5. While the aforesaid reason is plausible, when the applicants were not party in the suit and when leave to appeal has been granted to them, passage of time before which they could prefer appeal was inherent. In the total facts and circumstances, sufficient cause is made out to condone delay of 279 days.

Accordingly, delay is condoned. Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ANUP