Gujarat High Court
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited ... vs Govindbhai Kanabhai Kodiyatar on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6250/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6250 of
2024
In F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 31409 of 2024
==========================================================
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DY
ENGINEER
Versus
GOVINDBHAI KANABHAI KODIYATAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRATHAM P JOSHI(12796) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. MAYUR S BHATTI(17455) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for condoning the delay
of 131 days in preferring the Second Appeal for challenging the
judgment and decree dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned
4th Additional District Judge, Vanthali in Regular Civil Appeal
No. 95/2018 and the applicant had applied for certified copy of
the impugned judgment and decree on 14.03.2024 which was
prepared on 21.03.2024 and delivered on 21.03.2024.
Consequently, a delay has occurred in filing the said appeal.
2. The learned advocate for the appellant has stated that the
applicant had prepared the appeal proposal file and sent the
same to the divisional office on 15.04.2024 and the divisional
office had directed to the office of the applicant to provide
details with regard to case, and therefore, the applicant, vide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6250/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
letter dated 03.05.2024 gave details as per the direction. It is a
case of the appellant that the divisional office sent the file to the
circle office and thereafter circle office Junagadh sent the file to
corporate office, and corporate office, Rajkot granted approval to
file the said appeal against the impugned judgment and decree
and sent it to the circle office on 04.05.2024 and thereafter, vide
the said approval on 21.06.2024, the applicant prepared the
case file and sent it to the learned advocate for the applicant.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that
the aforesaid circumstances have to be taken into consideration
for condoning the delay in preferring the Second Appeal, and
therefore, no cause of negligence or malafide intentions, for
causing such delay, on the part of the applicant have attributed
as the delay is a procedural delay, and therefore, he prays that
the present application for condonation of delay is required to
be allowed.
4. In the alternative, learned advocate for the opponent has
strongly objected to the said application on the ground that no
sufficient cause and reasons have been stated in the application
for condonation of delay. The learned advocate for the opponent
has stated that the only reason that has been stated in the
application is with respect to taking the approval of a higher
authorities and the same cannot be considered as a sufficient
reason to condone the delay. The learned advocate for the
opponent has relied on the judgment in the case of Postmaster
General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited and Anr.
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6250/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having
considered the application for condonation of delay, a fact
remains that there was a delay of 131 days in preferring the
Second Appeal. It is not the days of delay which are relevant but
the reasons to condone the delay have to be looked into.
Moreover, from the reasons stated in the application, there is no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the
applicant in the present application. Furthermore, the applicant
does not stand to gain any benefit from causing such delay. In
view of the same, the present application for condonation of
delay is required to be allowed.
6. The judgment that has been relied on by the learned advocate
for the opponent also does not assist to the opponent in view of
the fact that in the present application, there is no gross
negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the applicant to
cause delay in filing the Second Appeal. Moreover, principles of
legal concessions has to be adopted to advance justice.
7. In view of the same, the present application is hereby allowed
and the delay of 131 days in preferring the Second Appeal is
hereby condoned.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
JIGAR J RABARI
