Gujarat High Court
Karamshibhai Jakshibhai Rabari vs Legal Heirs Of Late Priyavadan ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3751/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3751 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 13736 of 2024
================================================================
KARAMSHIBHAI JAKSHIBHAI RABARI
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE PRIYAVADAN JASHVANTLAL BHATT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT P PATEL(3498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
M/S.VYAS ASSOCIATES(1559) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR JAYDEVSINH CHUDASAMA(13128) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR PREM D DAVE(10958) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR. SHALIN J PATEL(14556) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 19/09/2025
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 168 days
in preferring the appeal.
2. It is reported that the rule issued by this Court under
order dated 16.07.2024 is served and learned advocate
Mr. Jaydevsinh Chudasma has appeared on behalf on
behalf of respondent Nos.1.1 and 1.2 and learned
advocate Mr. Shalin Patel appeared on behalf of
respondent No.4.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3751/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of para-2 of the application, wherein it
stated that the applicant applied for certified copy of the
order on 10.08.2023 ann after receiving the same the
appeal is filed on 20.04.2024.It is submitted that the
applicant is a poor agriculturist and hence, he was not
aware about the judgment and order. Thereafter, the
applicant took advice from the advocate and after
arranging the funds, the applicant engaged an advocate to
file appeal. Hence, some delay has occurred in filing the
appeal.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of
this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. Learned advocates for the respondent formally
oppose the grant of application.
6. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 168
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3751/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
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.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The delay of 168 days caused in preferring the appeal 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)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SIDDHARTH
