Gujarat High Court
Vinod Ganpatbhai Mali S/O Ganpatbhai ... vs Rashmika Vinod Mali D/O Dashrathbhai ... on 11 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4363/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4363 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22660 of 2025
================================================================
VINOD GANPATBHAI MALI S/O GANPATBHAI MALI
Versus
RASHMIKA VINOD MALI D/O DASHRATHBHAI MANILAL MALI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER(2104) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant condoning the
delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal against the order
dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court
No5, Vadodara in Family Suit No.578 of 2019.
2. It is reported that rule issued by this Court under
order dated 21.08.2025 is served and learned advocate
Mr. S. M. Dave states that learned advocate Ms.Aarti
Inamdar has instructions to appear on behalf of
respondent. Registry to reflect the name of learned
advocate for the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4363/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of para 2 of the application, wherein it
stated that the impugned judgment was passed on
13.03.2025, thereafter, the applicant applied for certified
copy on 15.03.2025, which was received on 29.04.2025.
Thereafter, since due to Summer Vacation in the Court,
the appeal could not be filed and advocate approached
the applicant on 27.6.2025 and prepared the memo of
appeal in the month of July-2025 and hence, some delay
has occurred.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of
this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Learned advocate for the respondent formally
opposes the grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 35
days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the
facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as
inordinate.
7. Considering the submissions and the contents of the
para mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained
sufficiently.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4363/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The delay of 35 days caused in preferring the appeal
against the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned
Family Court No5, Vadodara in Family Suit No.578 of 2019
is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to list the main
appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J)
SIDDHARTH
