M/S Anjani Impex vs General Manager, Canara Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 7499 Guj

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/CA/1442/2023                               ORDER DATED: 10/10/2023

                                                                                    undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1442 of
                                2023

              In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 35609 of 2022

                                  With
               F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 35609 of 2022
                                    In
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14335 of 2018
==========================================================
                              M/S ANJANI IMPEX
                                   Versus
                        GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR BALRAM D JAIN(3146) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
           SUNITA AGARWAL
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                               Date : 10/10/2023
                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The

present appeal is delayed by 44 days in challenging the order dated

05.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. Though we are not

convinced with the explanation offered by learned counsel for the

appellant to explain for the delay in filing the instant appeal, however

entering into the merits of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2022, we

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1442/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2023

undefined

may record that by the said order, the restoration application filed by the

appellant herein with the delay of 412 days was rejected as the Court was

not convinced to condone the delay on the explanation offered therein.

Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is sought to

be submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the explanation

offered by the appellant in the application for restoration was such as it

could not have been rejected by the learned Single Judge, for the reason

that the copy of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, Surat, as was

directed to be produced by the learned Single Judge, was not relevant to

decide the controversy at the end.

2. We are afraid to accept the submission made by the learned counsel

for the appellant for the same reason that the challenge before us is to the

order of the dismissal of the restoration application. The order of

dismissal of the writ petition is not subject matter of challenge in the

instant appeal. A perusal of the restoration application indicates that the

applicant has only stated that since the copy of the judgment of the

Consumer Forum, Surat, was not provided to him, by the trial court

advocate, the same could not be given to the counsel appearing for the

writ court. The said explanation cannot be treated as sufficient. No

infirmity could be found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/CA/1442/2023                               ORDER DATED: 10/10/2023

                                                                                   undefined

The present appeal is dismissed being misconceived both on the ground

of delay as well as on merits.

3. The oral request made by the learned counsel for the appellant for

suspension of this order is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

Sd/-

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ABHISHEK