Rushvina (Rushina) Park ... vs Murli (Satellite) Owners ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 642 Guj

       C/CA/1215/2021                                 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1215 of 2021

                        In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 14102 of 2020

==========================================================
  RUSHVINA (RUSHINA) PARK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SO. LTD.
                           Versus
MURLI (SATELLITE) OWNERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
                JUGALKISHOR RAMNARESH RAY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS(1296) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX(N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                  Date : 23/01/2023
                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Draft amendment is granted. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas for the applicant.

3. The respondents have been served copy of notice through affixation and whereas inspite thereof, no one has appeared on behalf of the said respondents.

4. By way of this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 2320 days which has occurred in filing First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned City Civil Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit - CCC No. 4619 of 2001.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Vyas would submit that while order for liquidation of the appellant-applicant Housing Society had been passed by

C/CA/1215/2021 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2023

the Competent Authority under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act in the year 1998, yet, the respondents, without joining the liquidator had filed the Civil Suit in the year 2001 resulting in the impugned order being passed against the applicant-Society. Learned Advocate would submit that since the applicant being the liquidator appointed pursuant to the order of liquidating the Co-operative Society referred to hereinabove, having no knowledge about filing of the Civil Suit and whereas though a learned Advocate is shown to be appearing on behalf of the defendant before the learned Civil Court, but the said learned Advocate had not being one who had been appointed by the liquidator for the appellant -applicant Society, more particularly as noted hereinabove, the Society having been ordered to be liquidated even prior to the filing of the suit.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Vyas for the applicant and considering the averments on record and further considering the fact that the respondents, having been served through affixation, have chosen not to appear and contest the present application, therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause for condoning the delay being made out, the present application deserves consideration.

7. In this view of the matter, delay of 2320 days, caused in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned City Civil Court No.8, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit - CCC No. 4619 of 2001, is hereby condoned.

8. With the above observations and direction, the present application is deposed of as allowed.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA