Gujarat High Court
Sachindra Vishrambhai Gupta vs Bhagwansingh Kedarsingh Gurjar on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/597/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
597 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 36562 of 2024
=============================================
SACHINDRA VISHRAMBHAI GUPTA
Versus
BHAGWANSINGH KEDARSINGH GURJAR
=============================================
Appearance:
MR HARNISH V DARJI(3705) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ADITYA R GUNDECHA(8869) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Harnish Darji, learned advocate for the
applicant and Mr. Aditya Gundecha, learned advocate who
has appeared on caveat on behalf of respondent no.1. Issue
rule making it returnable forthwith. Mr. Gundecha, learned
advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent
no.1.
2. Present application is filed seeking condonation of
delay of 20 days caused in preferring the captioned appeal.
3. Mr.Darji, learned advocate for the applicant has
invited attention of this Court to the averments made in the
application and has submitted that after pronouncement of
judgment and award on 3.10.2024, the certified copy of the
impugned judgment was applied for, which was ready on
22.10.2024. After obtaining the certified copy, applicant has
sought legal advise to avail appropriate legal remedy
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/597/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
available under law. The applicant had approached to the
learned advocate of High Court who had asked him to come
with all the necessary bunch of papers and evidence
produced on record were provided to the learned advocate.
The time was consumed in drafting appeal and presenting
appeal and in the process, delay of 20 days have been crept
in. By referring to the aforesaid events, learned advocate
has submitted that applicant was pursuing his case with
due diligence in approaching the Court within prescribed
period of Limitation, however due to circumstances beyond
his control, delay has occurred. He has further pointed out
that he has good case on merits and he may not be thrown
out on technical ground of delay. He has therefore,
requested to condone the delay.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent could not
controvert the aforesaid submissions made by the learned
advocate for the applicant, however has objected to
condone the delay. According to him, explanation offered
does not make a sufficient cause.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the averments made in the
application, the fact remains that the applicant all
throughout pursuing the matter to approach in appeal.
Hence, there is no negligency on the part of the applicant in
not preferring captioned appeal within the prescribed
period of limitation. The Court is inclined to exercise its
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/597/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
discretion as sufficient cause is made out to condone the
delay. Hence, present application succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The delay caused in preferring the captioned
appeal is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH
