Paschim Gujarat Vij Company ... vs Hansaben Nagardas Javiya
2021 Latest Caselaw 393 Guj

          C/CA/1636/2020                                    ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1636 of 2020

                   In F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 8052 of 2020

==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE
                        ENGINEER
                          Versus
               HANSABEN NAGARDAS JAVIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DIGANT B KAKKAD(6523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                              Date : 12/01/2021

                               ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Niyati Chauhan for learned advocate

Mr.Rituraj Meena for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Digant

Kakkad for the respondent no.1.

2. This application is filed for condonation of delay of 45 days

occurred in filing the present first appeal.

3. It is stated in the application that the Principal District Judge,

Junagadh pronounced the judgment and order in Regular Civil Appeal

No.56 of 2013 on 07.10.2019 and the certified copy was received on

14.10.2019. On receipt of the copy of the judgment, the concerned officer

C/CA/1636/2020 ORDER

suggested that the appeal is required to be filed by the company and

accordingly, the company is required to obtain certain permissions from

the higher authority for challenging the order before the Hon'ble Court. It

is also stated that necessary permissions and approvals from the

competent authority took considerable time and therefore, there is a delay

of 45 days in filing the present second appeal. Soon after the requisite

permissions and approval were received, the applicant has approached

this Court for filing the second appeal.

4. The explanation rendered by the applicant requires consideration.

5. In that view of the matter, the delay as shown in the application is sufficiently explained by the learned advocate for the applicant and accordingly, the same is required to be condoned.

6. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) MOHMMEDSHAHID