Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6630 Guj
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2376/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2376 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 114 of 2025
==========================================================
SONALBEN VIJAYBHAI PATEL
Versus
ALPESHBHAI GOKADBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2024 passed by learned Tribunal in MACP No.162/2023.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was applied on 01.05.2024 and the same was ready on 08.05.2024 and it was obtained on 09.05.2024. After receiving the certified copy, the applicants could not arrange the finance to meet out the expenses of stamp fee and the fee
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2376/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
of advocate therefore, they could not prefer the appeal within time. After arranging the finance, they approached the advocate to prefer the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay. In arranging the fund, a considerable time has spent, therefore, the applicant could not approach the Court within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay of 145 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal. It has been further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned owing to the reasons more particularly stated in Paragraph nos.6 and 7 of the application.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanawati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appropriate order may be passed.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions and the facts narrated in Paragraph nos. 6 and 7, I am of the considered view that the poverty cannot be constraint to the parties in preferring the appeal. In my considered view, the delay has been properly explained. Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in AIR (1987) SC 1353, the delay is condoned. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT
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!