Gujarat High Court
Dinaben W/O Bhashkarbhai Badheka vs Arjanbhai Jethabhai Keshvala on 25 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2545/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2545 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7759 of 2025
==========================================================
DINABEN W/O BHASHKARBHAI BADHEKA & ORS.
Versus
ARJANBHAI JETHABHAI KESHVALA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANSHU C DESAI(6832) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MS TANAVEER K LOLADIA(9994) for the Respondent(s) No.
1,2.1,2.2,2.3,3,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 25/09/2025
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 52 days in
preferring the appeal against the order dated 09.10.2024
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Gondal in Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2024.
2. It is reported that the rule is served and learned advocate
Mr.Tanaveer K Loladia has appeared.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the
contents of para-5 of the application, wherein it stated that
the plaintiffs are staying away from Rajkot. They are
engaged in jobs in private and Government sector.
Therefore, availing leave is difficult. The application also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2545/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
indicated that plaintiff No.1 had several age related issues
and therefore she was bed ridden from 10.01.2025 till
08.02.2025. The plaintiff No.2 was in attendance. The
application also stated that the plaintiffs arranged for
obtaining certified copies of relevant documents and
handed over to an advocate practicing at Gujarat High
Court. The lawyer, after long delay, returned the papers to
the plaintiffs on 25.02.2025. Thereafter, another lawyer
studied the bulky record and prepared the present appeal.
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 52 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 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 52 days caused in preferring the appeal against
the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned 2 nd
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in Special Civil Suit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2545/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
No.11 of 2024 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)
SUDHIR
