Mahidas B. Bhadja vs Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited
2024 Latest Caselaw 7844 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Mahidas B. Bhadja vs Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Limited on 2 August, 2024

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/CA/88/2024                               ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

                                                                                  undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 88 of 2024

                     In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 830 of 2024

==========================================================
                           MAHIDAS B. BHADJA
                                 Versus
                JINDAL VIJAYNAGAR STEEL LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
SERVED BY AFFIX(N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                             Date : 02/08/2024

                              ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 for condonation of delay of 251 days caused in preferring the First Appeal.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Aditya Pandya for the applicant. Though served, none appears for respondents.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree, plaintiff No.2 was not co-operating in filing the First Appeal. The time was consumed in convincing

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/88/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

plaintiff No.2 for filing First Appeal. Thereafter, plaintiff No.2 agreed to relinquish his rights in the subject matter and declared his intention not to proceed with the litigation. Thereafter, necessary documents were executed between plaintiff No.2 and the present applicant, whereby plaintiff No.2 relinquished his rights in the share of the partnership firm. Resultantly, there is a delay has occurred. It is further submitted that the delay is not intentional on the part of applicant and there was no lethargy on the part of the applicant.

4. Having considered the submissions and averments made in the application, the explanation which has been given by the applicants seems reasonable. The delay is not intentional and there was no lethargy on the part of the applicant. This court has taken into consideration the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, liberal and justice orientated approach needs to be adopted so that the substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. To meet with the equity, delay needs to be condoned. The cause for delay has sufficiently been

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/88/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/08/2024

undefined

made out. Hence, the delay is condoned.

5. The application is allowed and stands disposed

of.

(D. M. DESAI,J) MANOJ