Gujarat High Court
Trustees Of Shree Navidharati ... vs Heirs And Legal Representatives ... on 6 July, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/CA/312/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 312 of 2023
In F/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 13887 of 2022
==========================================================
TRUSTEES OF SHREE NAVIDHARATI RANA PANCH THROUGH
NATVARBHAI TRIKAMLAL RANA
Versus
HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECD. BHUPENDRABHAI
UMEDBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYRAJ CHAUHAN(2966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,1.2
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,1.2.1,1.2.2,1.2.3,1.3,1.4
YAGNESHKUMAR S JOSHI(8074) for the Respondent(s) No.
1.1,1.2.1,1.2.2,1.2.3,1.3,1.4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 06/07/2023
ORAL ORDER
By this application, the applicants, have prayed for condoning
the delay of 300 days caused in filing the captioned Civil Revision
Application. Mr Dhruv Thakkar, learned advocate for Mr Jayraj
Chauhan, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the
applicants, are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
08.04.2019 passed by the appellate Court. The applicants, applied
for certified copy on 09.04.2019 and was ready on 13.05.2019. It is
submitted that under the bonafide impression, that the applicants,
preferred a Second Appeal, and in doing so, there was a delay
caused of 243 days; the Civil Application, seeking condonation of
delay came to be allowed by this Court on 20.01.2022 and the
Second Appeal thereafter, was listed for hearing and on 19.04.2022.
The said Second Appeal, came to be withdrawn with a liberty to take
C/CA/312/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
out appropriate proceedings.
2. It is submitted that immediately, after withdrawal of the
Second Appeal on 19.04.2022, on 29.04.2022, that the captioned
Civil Revision Application was filed. It is submitted that in doing so,
there occurred a delay of 300 days. It is submitted that the
proceedings, which were pursued by the applicants were bonafide
and in the Court, without jurisdiction. It is therefore, urged that the
delay, may be condoned. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the
Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, so also the
decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2004(3) GLH 669, so also
the decisions reported in 1995 Sup. (4) SCC 681, AIR 1996 SC 1626,
1996 SC 2750, 2010 (2) GLH 971, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and AIR 2008
SCW 5692.
3. Mr Prince Datta, learned advocate for Mr S.P. Majmudar,
learned advocate for the respondents submitted that there is no
explanation offered for the delay of 300 days and therefore, the
applicants failed to provide any just and sufficient cause for the
gross delay caused in preferring the captioned Civil Revision
Application. It is also submitted that the reason for the delay by the
applicants, is not plausible and cannot justify the period of more
than 10 months. Reliance is placed on the judgments, viz. (i)
Basawaraj vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported (2013) 14
SCC 81; (ii) Prem Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 14
SCC 88; State of Gujarat vs. Keshurbhai Dosabhai Ahir reported in
Civil Application no.1 of 2018 in Letters Patent Appeal no.805 of
2018; and Lanka Venkateswarlu (Dead) by LRS. vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 363.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
C/CA/312/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
parties.
5. Pertinently, after the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019
passed by the appellate Court, that the applicants preferred a
Second Appeal together with an application seeking condonation of
delay. In the Civil Application No.1629 of 2021, this Court, passed an
order dated 20.01.2022, condoning the delay of 243 days caused in
preferring the Second Appeal. The said order, has not been
challenged by the respondents before any higher forum. After the
delay was condoned, that the Second Appeal no.26 of 2022, came
to be listed and on 19.04.2022. The said Second Appeal, was
permitted to be withdrawn. While permitting the withdrawal, liberty
has been reserved to the applicant to file Civil Revision Application
or any other appropriate proceedings, as may be available under
law.
6. Immediately on 29.04.2022, the applicants, have presented
the captioned Civil Revision Application. Perceptibly, the delay of
243 days was condoned by this Court. Therefore, there is sufficient
explanation offered by the applicants for the delay of 300 days
caused in preferring the captioned Civil Revision Application, as the
the applicants were pursuing the remedy, but of course not before
the appropriate forum. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the
applicants, have not provided sufficient explanation in support or to
substantiate the delay which has occurred in preferring the
captioned Civil Revision Application.
7. It is by now well settled that adopting a justice-oriented
approach, if the sufficient cause is offered for condoning the delay,
the delay deserves to be condoned. It is also by now well settled
that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter
C/CA/312/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being
defeated. The Apex Court, has also held and observed that against
this, when delay is condoned, the highest than can happen is that a
cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. It must
be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to
legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do so.
8. In view of the above, and the sufficient explanation offered by
the applicants and the time consumed in pursuing the proceedings
before the Court not having jurisdiction, the application, deserves to
be allowed and is accordingly allowed in terms of paragraph 24 (B).
The delay of 300 days caused in preferring the captioned Civil
Revision Application, is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute. No
order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
BINOY B PILLAI
