Gujarat High Court
M/S Mansi Reality Private Ltd vs Deputy Engineer (O And M), Dakshin ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/916/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 916 of 2025
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33556 of 2024
With
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33556 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
In
F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 33556 of 2024
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 of 2017
==================================================
M/S MANSI REALITY PRIVATE LTD.
Versus
DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M), DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. &
ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MS AKANKSHA A DWIVEDI(12913) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 14/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
No one is present to press this application even in the revised
call. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate has put in appearance on
behalf of the respondent.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated
11.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge filed with the delay of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/916/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
1966 days.
3. A perusal of the record indicates that the present application
was presented on 27.11.2024 and was got registered on 11.02.2025.
Coming to the explanation furnished seeking condonation of delay in
the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we may record
that the only explanation offered by the appellant is that the
appellant was agitating the issues before the different legal Fora and
had incurred substantial legal expenditures. For preferring the
Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge, further legal expenditure was required to be made and hence
the appellant did not prefer the Letters Patent Appeal immediately
after receipt of the order, subject matter of challenge herein.
4. We may further record that there is a contention in paragraph
'6' of the application that a group of Letters Patent Appeals had been
preferred before the High Court for the similar issue and the same
were allowed. Neither number of the writ petition nor the order
passed by this Court allowing the same has been disclosed therein.
The further assertion is that the the Hon'ble Apex Court has
confirmed the judgment of this Court which is also bereft of any
detail about the judgment or even the date of the judgment. The
contention is that being encouraged by the decisions of the Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/916/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
Court or the High Court, the appellant took legal opinion and gave a
notice on 07.08.2024 to the respondent demanding refund of
infrastructure development charges. This statement made in
paragraph '6' of the application itself indicates that the appellant is a
fence-sitter who had slept over the matter and further seeks to
approach this Court with vague assertions that others have been
granted similar benefits. Besides the above-noted averments, no
other submissions have been made giving explanation for the delay
of 1966 days.
4. We, therefore, do not fit it a fit case to condone the inordinate
unexplained laches on the part of the appellant in filing the present
appeal. The appeal is dismissed on the ground that the appeal was
filed beyond the period of limitation. No order as to cost.
Consequently, the connected Civil Applications also stand
disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
