Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8009 Guj
Judgement Date : 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4678/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4678 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 19980 of 2025
==========================================================
GUJARAT RURAL HOUSING BOARD
Versus
LABHUBEN BHIKHABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR THACKER(888) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
SHIVANG A THACKER(7424) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 5798 days occurred in filing the
first appeal challenging the order dated 31.12.2010 passed by
the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land
Reference Case No.119 of 2003.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Ghorpade for learned advocate
Mr. Thacker for the applicants submits that delay of 5798 days
occurred on the ground that the inward Clerk of the office of the
applicant has misplaced the communication addressed by the
LAQ Officer of the respondent No.4 to the applicant with regard
to the passing of the judgment and award. It is only after filing of
execution application i.e. in the year 2018 that the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4678/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
came into the knowledge with regard to the impugned judgment
and award. On that ground, learned advocate Mr. Ghorpade prays
for condonation of the delay of 5798 days caused in filing the
first appeal.
3. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
Mr. Ghorpade, it emerges that the impugned award under
challenge was passed on 31.12.2010, whereas present
application along with first appeal came to be filed on 23.06.2025
which was registered on 03.09.2025. It further emerges that
except one word with regard to the missing of communication,
no other explanation offered in the application. Additionally,
learned advocate Mr. Thacker has submitted that during the
execution proceedings the amount deposited by the present
applicants has already been disbursed in favour of the claimant
and in that background, no purpose would survive to entertain
this application. Hence, the present application is rejected.
4. Since this application is rejected, the captioned appeal does
not survive and the same is also rejected.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh
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!