Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 162 Guj
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1513/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 1513 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 6464 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1662 of 2025
In
F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 6597 of 2025
======================================
PATHUBHAI NAGJIBHAI
Versus
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 05/05/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Aditya J. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Shivam Dixit, learned AGP on advance copy for the respondent - State.
2. Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate appears for the respondent no.2 - Corporation in the main appeal. The advance copies of the present cross-objections have been served upon the learned advocate for the appellant in the main appeal. Despite service of advance copy, learned advocate has chose not to appear and contest the present applications.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1513/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Dixit, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.
4. Considering the averments made in the application and noticing the fact that the main appeal at the instance of the respondent - Corporation being admitted and the impugned judgment and award is pending consideration in the captioned appeal, wherein the present respondent - original claimants intends to seek enhancement of compensation as against the said impugned judgment and award, to ensure effective and efficient justice, this Court is inclined to ensure its discretion. Hence, the present application seeking condonation of delay of 95 days caused in preferring the cross-objection deserves consideration.
5. Looking to the averments made in the application, it cannot be said that no reasonable explanation has been offered to condone the delay. Hence, present applications stand allowed. The delay, caused in preferring the cross- objections, is hereby condoned. Rule made absolute.
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...
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!