[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Heirs Of Becharji Chhaganji on 10 December, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3441/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3441 of
2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16642 of 2025
================================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
HEIRS OF BECHARJI CHHAGANJI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. DEVANG D DAVE(2627) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS POOJA CHAUDHARY, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present application is from group of 10 applications
for condonation of delay, in which in there applications, private
respondent has expired and therefore, in those applications, Civil
Applications (for bringing heirs on record) are filed.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 819 days in
preferring the appeal against judgment and decree dated
04.11.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3441/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
Gandhinagar in LRC No.28 of 2009.
3. Rule was issued on 21.08.2025 returnable on
29.09.2025.
4. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to
the contents of paras-3 to 5 of the application and submitted that
the delay has occurred on account of procedural aspects and it is
not intentional.
5. Learned AGP for the respondent formally opposes the
grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that
considering the facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated
as inordinate.
7. Considering the submissions and the contents of the
application mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained
sufficiently.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3441/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
discussed.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The
delay of 819 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
10. The main appeal is ordered to be listed on 22.12.2025.
Considering the nature of dispute involved, the date of Section 4
notification and other attending circumstances, the Court may
attempt to take First Appeal for final disposal and hence, Registry
is directed to call for the Records and Proceedings so as to reach to
this Court on or before the next date.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SHITOLE
