L H Of Decd. Gajjar Kantilal ... vs Patel Ganshyambhai Shankarlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 219 Guj

      C/CA/441/2020                                 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 441 of 2020

                      In F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 40733 of 2019

==========================================================
               L H OF DECD. GAJJAR KANTILAL BHAILALBHAI
                                 Versus
                   PATEL GANSHYAMBHAI SHANKARLAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
for the Applicant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR H A SHAH(6071) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR. DARSHIT H SHAH(9894) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6
MR. PANAM C SONI(7035) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

                                Date : 06/01/2022

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. By way of filing the present application, the applicants have prayed to condone the delay of 1815 days occurred in filing the Appeal, on the ground that they were trying to gather proper financial means to survive as the deceased father passed away on 16.5.2006 and has left behind three daughters and two brothers and out of them, one daughter is disabled and other two daughters are now married and leaving in their marital home. The main ground for delay is non-availability of financial means to engage a proper lawyer.

2. Heard Mr. H.A.Shah, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate for the Opponent No.1.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted the

C/CA/441/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022

same facts which are narrated in the Appeal Memo and has submitted that due to financial crunch, the matter could not be filed by the Appellants in time. He has submitted to condone the delay of 1815 days.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for the opponent No.1 has vehemently opposed for granting the same and stated that there is no sufficient cause justifying the delay of huge delay of 1815 days, as narrated in the application. It is also submitted that there is almost more than 5 years delay and there is no plausible cause made out in the application and, therefore, the application needs to be rejected.

5. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and the material placed on record, it transpires that the present applicants have preferred this Application for condonation of delay of almost 1815 days caused in preferring the Second Appeal against judgment and decree dated 11.9.2014 passed in by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No. 100 of 2005, which has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D) Mehsana dated 28.12.2001 in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1994.

6. Admittedly, the First Appeal was disposed of in the year 2014. It appears from the true-copy of the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court that the application for certified copy thereof was applied on 23.12.2019 and the same was ready on 27.12.2019 and was delivered on the same day i.e. 27.12.2019. Thus, though the judgment and decree was dated 11.9.2014 , the

C/CA/441/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022

appellants herein had applied for certified copy only on 23.12.2019 i.e. almost after 5 years from the date of passing of the judgment. On perusal of the ground mentioned in the Application that time has been spent for raising finance to prefer Appeal, is merely a statement. There is no other evidence worth a name produced to substantiate the say that from 2014 onwards there was no finance availability with the appellants. There is no sufficient and justifiable cause shown in the application for condonation of delay. There is long delay of 1815 days, which is not sufficiently explained.

7. Under these circumstances, the present application for condonation of delay of 1815 days cannot be acceded to and hence the application for condonation of delay of 1815 days is hereby rejected.

No order as to costs.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the F/Second Appeal No. 40733 of 2019 also stands to be de-registered and hence disposed of.

(DR. A. P. THAKER, J) SAJ GEORGE