Gujarat High Court
Virendrakumar Gulabchand ... vs Virendrakumar Gulabchand ... on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/1389/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1389 of 2020
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 8878 of 2020
==========================================================
VIRENDRAKUMAR GULABCHAND CHAUHAN
Versus
VIRENDRAKUMAR GULABCHAND CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOT GIVEN for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 22/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar on behalf
of the applicant. Endorsement on the board shows that Rule is
served to respondents No. 2 and 5 and whereas they have
chosen not to appear. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits
that while respondent No.4 is shown as unserved and in so far
as respondent No.1 is concerned, Rule is not received back.
2. He submits that respondent No.1 is the applicant himself
and respondents No. 2 to 5 are the real contesting parties and
therefore, he submits that presence of the other respondents
C/CA/1389/2020 ORDER
may not be necessary. Considering the same, this application
is taken up for hearing.
3. By way of this application, the applicant prays for
condonation of delay of 196 days in preferring First appeal
against judgment and award passed by the learned MACT
(Main), Mahesana dated 10.05.2019 in MACP No. 554/2007.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Thakkar submits that the applicant
after getting the judgment and award, in the month of July,
2019 had been advised to approach the learned advocate
practicing in the High Court with all the papers and it took time
to collect all the papers. Furthermore, since it was marriage
season in December 2019, since the applicant was engaged in
various social engagements, he could not meet the learned
advocate immediately. Therefore, also some delay had
occurred. It is submitted that after he had submitted the
papers, the learned advocate had studied the entire issue and
had taken reasonable time to prefer appeal and whereas since
the period of limitation was already over, even the reasonable
time taken by the learned advocate contributed to the overall
days of delay.
C/CA/1389/2020 ORDER
5. Considering the same, the applicant prays that delay of
196 days in preferring the appeal may be condoned.
6. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and
having considered the submissions of the learned advocate
and having perused the averments made in the application,
this Court is of the opinion that delay of 196 days is sufficiently
explained and therefore, the same shall be condoned. The
delay of 196 days occurred in preferring the appeal is hereby
condoned. Present application stands allowed accordingly.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
MAYA S. CHAUHAN
