Gujarat High Court
Vijaybhai Valjibhai Jamariya vs Rajiben Bhikhalal Shiyani on 4 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3810/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3810 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 20571 of 2025
================================================================
VIJAYBHAI VALJIBHAI JAMARIYA
Versus
RAJIBEN BHIKHALAL SHIYANI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV K MEHTA(7094) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 188 days
in preferring the appeal against the order dated
21.09.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Porbandar in Family Suit No.76 of 2024.
2. It is reported that the rule issued by this Court under
order dated 24.07.2025 is served upon the respondent
however, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of para-3 of the application, wherein it
stated that the applicant is working as courier boy and he
is in financial crunch. It is submitted that later on he came
to know about the Legal Aid, attached to this Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3810/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
thereafter, he filed the appeal after engaging an advocate
through Legal Aid. Hence, some delay has occurred in
preferring the appeal.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of
this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 188
days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the
facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as
inordinate.
6. Considering the submissions and the contents of the
para mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained
sufficiently.
7. 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
discussed.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The delay of 188 days caused in preferring the appeal
against the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Porbandar in Family Suit
No.76 of 2024 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3810/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to list the
main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J)
SIDDHARTH
