Gujarat High Court
Hema @ Hemu Rahulbhai Solanki vs Rahul Kanubhai Solanki on 22 July, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5581/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5581 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30019 of 2024
================================================================
HEMA @ HEMU RAHULBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
RAHUL KANUBHAI SOLANKI
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR DADHICHI L LIMBOLA(10936) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KETAN B JAIN(9292) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS KINJAL N CHAUHAN(13314) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 140 days
in preferring the appeal against the order dated
29.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Vadodra in Family Suit No.288 of 2017.
2. It is reported that the rule issued by this Court is
served upon the respondent and learned advocate
Mr.Ketan Jain has appeared.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of paras-1 to 3 of the application, wherein
it stated that the applicant was not aware about the legal
technicalities pertaining to challenging the order and she
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5581/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
was informed about the order passed in the suit by the
advocate. Thereafter, it took some times to get the
certified copies and arrange for the fees of the advocate.
Thereafter, the applicant discussed the same with the
advocate. Hence, there is some delay in filing the appeal.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of
this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. When the matter is called out, learned advocate for
the respondent is absent.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 140
days of delay, 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
para 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
discussed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5581/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The delay of 140 days caused in preferring the appeal
against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodra in Family Suit
No.288 of 2017 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
