Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 700 Guj
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1938/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1938 of
2023
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 32216 of 2023
==========================================================
HEIRS OF RAJABHAI MOHAMMED HUSSAIN SHAIKH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. I. H. SYED, SR. ADVOCATE with PRITHU PARIMAL(9025) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR. ANKIT DESAI for MR BHARAT R PANDYA(543) for the
Respondent(s) No. 5.2,6.2,6.3,6.4,6.5
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 5.1,5.3
RUSHI A BAROT(8993) for the Respondent(s) No. 5.2,6.2,6.3,6.4,6.5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 6.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 25/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed for condoning the delay of 64 days, which has occurred in preferring the Review Application against the judgment dated 08-12-2022 in the main matter.
2. Learned Advocate for the applicants by drawing attention of this Court to the contents of Para-2 and 3 and has submitted that the delay has occurred on account of the applicants approaching the Apex Court against the judgment under Review and pursuant to the directions of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1938/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024
undefined
Apex Court have preferred Special Civil Application before this Court, which came to be disposed of by order dated 25-09-2023 and in view of what is recorded in the order dated 25-09-2023 in Special Civil Application No.16692 of 2023, present application is filed.
3. The respondents have objected to grant of delay condonation application by filing Affidavit in reply.
4. The Court is of the view that as the applicants are able to reasonably explain the delay of 64 days and the delay of 64 days in itself cannot be treated to be inordinate, particularly, when the applicants are are ready and willing to make statement that there is no change in the status of the land in question, that is to say that the possession is maintained by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, the delay is required to be condoned and accordingly condoned.
5. It is observed herein that all the contentions raised by the respondents in the Affidavit in reply can be treated to be reply to the main application for review.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. Delay of 64 days is condoned. Rule is made absolute. Misc. Civil Application to be listed in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) PARESH SOMPURA
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!