Gujarat High Court
Pinalben Jigneshbhai Mistry D/O. ... vs Jigneshbhai Sureshbhai Mistry on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4581/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4581 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24954 of 2024
================================================================
PINALBEN JIGNESHBHAI MISTRY D/O. BHAILALBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
JIGNESHBHAI SURESHBHAI MISTRY
================================================================
Appearance:
DHWANI Y CHANDARANA(8383) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant for condoning
the delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal against the
order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bharuch in Family Suit No.44 of 2022.
2. It is reported that the rule is served however, none
has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of para-2 of the application, wherein it
stated that after the impugned judgment, the applicant
has approached the legal service of Court below and she
was advised to prefer appeal before this Court and
accordingly submitted all necessary documents to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4581/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
advocate assigned by legal aid committee and certified
copy of the order was delivered to the applicant and
during this process, some delay has occurred. Learned
advocate makes a statement that the service has been
effected as the same has been refused by the respondent
and report in this connection shall be filed by learned
advocate with the Registry of this Court.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of
this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 24
days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the
facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as
inordinate.
6. Considering the submissions and the contents of the
para mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained
sufficiently.
7. A reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj
Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives
and others vs/. Union of India and Another, reported
in, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein the term "Sufficient
Cause" was interpreted and the approach of Courts while
deciding application for condonation of delay was
discussed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4581/2024 ORDER DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The delay of 24 days in preferring the appeal against the
order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bharuch in Family Suit No.44 of 2022 is
hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due
course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J)
SIDDHARTH
