Gujarat High Court
Umeshchandra Chandulal Dave vs State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4733/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4733 of
2024
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1207 of 2025
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1207 of 2025
In
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 15 of 2001
==========================================================
UMESHCHANDRA CHANDULAL DAVE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
GAURAV P GOYAL(8861) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. JAY MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. In view of the earlier order, Mr. Jay Mehta, learned
AGP for the respondent No.1 - State has tendered a copy of
order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Collector, Junagadh,
which is taken on record, whereby subject fair price shop is
already allotted to some other person namely Jagdish
Vinodrai Jani.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has fairly submitted
that in view of the subsequent development, present
proceedings have practically became infructuous.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4733/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
3.1 I have considered the fact that now in the subject
matter, the third party interest is also created. It is also
considered that present application is for condonation of delay
in preferring the restoration application in Second Appeal
No.15 of 2001, which is dismissed vide order dated
27.09.2022 whereby, there is a delay of 677 days.
3.2 It is fruitful to refer the various judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Office Of The Chief
Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd. & Another
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, (ii) Maniben Devraj Shah vs.
Municipal Corporation, Bruhin Mumbai reported in (2010) 5
SCC 157 (iii) Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 (14) SCC 81 and also
(iv) Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors.
reported in AIR 2022 SC 332.
3.3 In view of the above, and in view of subsequent
development, considering the application for restoration and
as application for condonation of delay will merely become
academic exercise as present proceedings are filed after delay
of almost two years. Therefore, considering all these aspects,
no fruitful purpose will be served to grant any prayer made
in the present application for condonation of delay neither
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4733/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
any further purpose will be served for consideration of the
Second Appeal, which is filed in the year 2001, which was
dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.09.2022 passed in
Second Appeal No.15 of 2001 and the proceedings are filed
before the trial court by way of Regular Civil Suit No.225 of
1993. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances, no sufficient cause is made out for condonation
of delay.
3.4 In view of above, and also considering the averments
made in the application for condonation of huge delay of 677
days, no justifiable cause is made out and it is found that
applicant remained negligent. Moreover considering the fact
that now, consideration of this application in positive manner
will also amount to academic and futile exercise and,
therefore, present application is not required to be dismissed
as no prayer of present application is required to be
considered. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
4. In view of disposal of the application for condonation of
delay, the present Misc. Civil Application will not survive and
the same is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
DIWAKAR SHUKLA
