Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 479 Guj
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2156/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2156 of
2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6987 of 2025
================================================================
KUNTAL CHANDRAKANTBHAI MEVADA
Versus
ARCHANA W/O KUNTAL MEVADA D/O NARENDRABHAI SHANTILAL
SIDDHAPURA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSH M SURTI(3907) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARAT R PANDYA(543) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Bharat Pandya waives
service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 37 days in
preferring the appeal against judgment and decree dated
24.10.2024 the Judge, Family Court No.7, Rajkot in Family Suit
No.1848 of 2017.
3. Notice was issued on 21.04.2025 returnable on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2156/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
23.06.2025. In response to the notice issued, learned Advocate
Mr.Bharat Pandya appears for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to
the contents of para-2 of the application, wherein it stated that the
applicant is the only son and mother of the applicant is not keeping
good health and there was some delay in obtaining certified copy of
the impugned order and hence, some delay has occurred.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent formally opposes
the grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 37
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
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/2156/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
discussed.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The
delay of 37 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
10. Registry is directed to list the main appeal in due
course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J) SHITOLE
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!