Gujarat High Court
Devuben Mangabhai @ Shantuben W/O ... vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 7 May, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1264/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1264 of 2025
In F/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 910 of 2025
==========================================================
DEVUBEN MANGABHAI @ SHANTUBEN W/O HARIBHAI MAKWANA &
ANR.
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
AAKASH D MODI(7449) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. RULE. Learned Advocate Ms.Sejal Mandavia appearing for
respondent no.1 waives service of notice of rule.
2. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of
2709 days caused in preferring the captioned Letters Patent Appeal.
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Modi appearing for the applicants have
submitted that due to the conduct of the local advocate i.e. learned
Advocate, Mr.Kamlesh Naranbhai Sagathiya, the applicants were unable
to file the Letters Patent Appeal within the limitation. It is submitted that
learned advocate Mr.Sagathiya was engaged by the applicants and the
relevant papers were handed over to him, including the judgment dated
07/07/2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.27409 of 2007, in order to file Letters Patent Appeal,
however, he did not do the same even after the payment of professional
fees. It is submitted by him that thereafter, the applicants were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1264/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
constrained to file a police complaint before Sayla Police Station against
the learned advocate Mr.Sagathiya. It is submitted that the papers were
returned to the applicants in the year 2023 and the professional fees were
thereafter returned. It is thus submitted that due to the aforesaid reason,
the delay of 2709 days was caused in preferring the captioned appeal.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Mandavia appearing for respondent no.1 has
opposed the present application and submitted that the delay may not be
condoned. She has also referred to the police statement of the applicants
dated 10/12/2024 and submitted that in fact, it appears that the applicants
have received the papers in the year 2021, and there is no explanation
coming forward from the years 2021 to 2024 when the present Letters
Patent Appeal was filed. She has also referred to the decision of the
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.25032 of 2014 dated
03/05/2024 in the case of State of U.P. & Anr., vs. Mohan Lal 2024 (5)
JT 146 and submitted that the huge delay of 2709 days may not be
condoned.
5. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. Indubitably, there is a delay of 2709 days in filing the captioned
Letters Patent Appeal. We are inclined to condone the delay in peculiar
set of facts. After the judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge
on 07/07/2017, the present applicants - original respondents, who are
serving as daily wagers and belong to the lower strata of the society, had
handed over the papers of the writ petition along with the judgment to
their learned advocate Mr.Kamlesh Naranbhai Sagathiya to file an appeal.
They had also paid the professional fees of Rs.50,000/- each. Since
nothing was done by that learned advocate, ultimately, the applicants
were constrained to file the police complaint against the learned advocate
on 28/11/2024, which is produced with the present application. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1264/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
complaint was filed under the provisions of Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and
506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before Sayla Police Station,
Surendranagar. Pursuant to the registration of the complaint, the
concerned Police Officer has also recorded the statement of the applicant
No.2-Kaluben Jehabhai Solanki, who is aged about 72 years. In her
statement dated 10.12.2024, we find that she has submitted that after the
complaint was registered, the learned advocate has returned the
professional fees of Rs.50,000/- and also the papers. We also find that in
the photocopy of the original statement dated 10/12/2024, there is some
interpolation done in the year 2021 (2023) with regard to handing over
the papers.
6. In the present application, the applicants on affidavit, in paragraph
no.3, has categorically stated that they have received the papers in the
year 2023. We believe the said statement as correct in the peculiar facts
that the applicants have in fact registered the complaint in the year 2024
and in all probabilities, they had received the papers in the year 2023 and
the professional fees in installments.
7. Hence, on overall analysis of the aforesaid facts and in the interest
of justice, we find that learned advocate of the applicants, Mr.Kamlesh
Naranbhai Sagathiya was responsible for the delay caused in preferring
the Letters Patent Appeal.
8. Accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay of 2709 days
caused in preferring the captioned Letters Patent Appeal. The delay of
2709 days caused in the appeal is condoned. So far as the reliance is
placed upon the decision in case of Mohan Lal (supra), the same will
not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1264/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025
undefined
9. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry to list the
captioned Letters Patent Appeal in seriatim.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 54
