Rohiniben Narendrakumar Patel vs Shelter Enterprises Co Pvt Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 7450 Guj

     C/CA/1882/2021                                  ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1882 of 2021
                                     With
                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1884 of 2021
                                     With
                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1886 of 2021
==========================================================
                      ROHINIBEN NARENDRAKUMAR PATEL
                                   Versus
                      SHELTER ENTERPRISES CO PVT LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHIR NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR VANDAN K BAXI(5863) & MS PRACHITI V SHAH(9990) for
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NANDISH Y CHUDGAR(2011) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                  Date : 29/08/2022
               COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Rule was already issued by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2021.

2. The present applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 139 days caused in filing the revision applications.

3. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, appearing for the applicants has submitted that the applicants, being senior citizens, for the reasons stated in the applications, were unable to file the present revision applications within limitation, and hence, there was a delay, which was calculated by the Registry as 139 days, and looking to the cause as well as the reasons stated in the applications, the same may be allowed.

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

4. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, has placed reliance on the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, reported in AIR 2021 SC 2158, and has submitted that the Apex Court, looking to the pandemic situation prevailing in the country, has extended the period of limitation, while exercising the powers under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, has submitted that the case of the present applicants falls as per the paragraph No.1 of the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Apex Court, which has been subsequently, extended by the Apex Court vide final order dated 10.01.2022 till 28.02.2022. It is submitted that the appeal of the petitioner(s) got dismissed on 01.08.2019, 90 days expired on 01.11.2019, however the present applications are filed on 04.10.2021. It is submitted that further delay, which has occurred after 01.11.2019, is rightly and precisely excluded by the Registry and hence, the delay of 139 days may be condoned, as the applicants will suffer irreparable injury and loss, if the present applications are not allowed.

6. In support of his submissions, learned senior advocate Mr.Nanavati, has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Dehli, in the the case of lifestar Pharma Private Limited Vs. Starlife Healthcare reported in 2022 SCC Online Del 1101.

7. Vehemently opposing the present applications, learned advocate Mr.B.T.Rao, appearing for the respondent No.1 has

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

submitted that the delay which is calculated by the Registry itself is incorrect and instead of 139 days, it would be 747 days. He has submitted that the limitation of 90 days got over on 01.11.2019, after the appeal of the applicants was dismissed on 01.08.2019 and the present applications seeking condonation of delay are filed on 04.10.2021, which is beyond period of limitation. Learned advocate Mr.Rao, has further submitted that the order of the Supreme Court, by which, the limitation has been extended will not apply in the case of the applicants. He has referred to the paragraph No.8(I) and (III) of the order dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, whereby the Supreme Court has, in its wisdom, extended the period of limitation to only those proceedings, which are filed within a period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021, and only that period stood extended. It is submitted by him that in the present case, the order passed by the Apex Court is subsequent to expiry of the limitation period which got over on 01.11.2019, and none of the observations or directions issued by the Apex Court will apply to the case of the present applicants. Reliance is placed by him on the judgment of this Court in the case of Parakramsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja Vs. Yogi Corporation, [2002 (3) GLR 2040], whereby principle rule of ejusdem generis is discussed and has submitted that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogously are coupled together, they are understood to be used in the cognate sense and they take the same colour from each other. It is submitted that the Supreme Court, while extending the limitation, has specifically stated that the period therein which would stand excluded and

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

in the present case, since the said period is not included and the limitation having been over, the observations made by the Supreme Court cannot be applied in this case.

7.1 Learned advocate Mr.Rao, has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81], in support of his submissions and has submitted that the discretion with regard to the condonation of delay has to be exercised judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence, the present applications may be rejected.

8. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the relevant documents.

9. The facts, which are established are that the present applicants, who are senior citizens, have filed civil applications for condonation of delay. The appeal was rejected on 01.08.2019. The period, as prescribed for the limitation of 90 days got over on 01.11.2019, the revision applications against the aforesaid judgment and order rejecting the appeal, are filed on 04.10.2021. Accordingly, the Registry has calculated the delay of 139 days by considering the order of the Supreme Court passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that instead of 139 days, the delay actually would be 747 days, since the limitation period got expired on 01.11.2019 and the present applications are filed on 04.10.2021, and hence, the entire period is to be calculated as such by ignoring the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

10. The submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties hinges on the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, whereby the Supreme Court, looking to the COVID Pandemic situation prevailing in the entire country while exercising the powers under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India, has extended the period of limitation prescribed under the General Law or Special Laws. One of such orders dated 19.07.2022, which is annexed by the applicants, wherein the same refers to the order dated 23.03.2020, which appears to have been passed by the Supreme Court at the very first instance extending the limitation period.

11. The order dated 23.03.2020, which was passed at the first instance reads as under:-

"This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State).

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings. We are exercising this power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declare that this order is a binding order within

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities. This order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts for being communicated to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction. Issue notice to all the Registrars General of the High Courts, returnable in four weeks."

12. Thereafter, the period has been extended by various orders. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer and incorporate the observations made by the Apex Court in the order dated 19.07.2021, the same reads as under.

" We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in COVID-19 Virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation cased by the sudden and second outbrust of COVID-19 Virus, thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of litigants-public in all the states. We, therefore restore the order dated 23rd March, 2020 and in continuation of the order dated 8th March, 2021 direct that the period(s) of the limitation, as prescribed any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quashI-judicial proceedings either condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders."

13. Both the orders dated 23.03.2020 and the order dated 19.07.2021, if closely read, use the expression "whether condonable or not, shall stand extended till further orders". Thus, the Supreme Court was conscious of the facts with regard to the nature of delay, whether such period was "condonable or not".

14. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicants have filed applications seeking condonation of delay beyond the period of 90 days. Thus, the present applications which were filed on 04.10.2021, after the period of limitation got over will fall under the head of "non condonable delay". The paragraph No.1 of the aforesaid order, reads as under:-

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

" 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the prod from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021."

The Supreme Court has directed that for the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2020 shall stand excluded. The applicants have filed the present revision applications on 04.10.2021 within the aforesaid period. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the Registry has calculated the period of 139 days precisely or it should be a period of 747 days as canvassed by the respondent No.1. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Registry has precisely in its wisdom calculated the delay of 139 days, since the Supreme Court has categorically very mentioned hereinabove, the aforesaid period, whether the same would be condonable or not, shall stand extended. The expression used by the Apex Court has stated hereinabove, which pertains to non-condonable delay shall also stand extended and hence, no fault can be found on the part of the Registry in calculating the period of limitation, since it is as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court. It is also noticed that the Supreme Court finally, has extended the aforesaid period till 28.02.2022.

15. Under these circumstances, the applications seeking condonation of delay of 139 days, do not in any manner suffer from miscalculation of days. There cannot be any cavil on the proposition of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the

C/CA/1882/2021 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022

case of Basawaraj (supra) as well as the Coordinate Bench in the case of Parakramsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja (supra), however the facts, as mentioned hereinabove and emerging from the present applications, are exclusively governed by the orders passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid proceedings. Hence, looking to the delay of 139 days and the same being filed by the senior citizens, and the reasons mentioned therein, this Court is of the opinion that the same requires to be condoned and the applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute. Registry shall accordingly list the civil revision applications as per seriatim.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

MAHESH BHATI/128-130