Gujarat High Court
Pramilaben Wd/O Rajnikant Harilal Shah vs Dilipbhai Harilal Shah Since Deceased ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4709/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4709 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 25577 of 2024
==========================================================
PRAMILABEN WD/O RAJNIKANT HARILAL SHAH & ORS.
Versus
DILIPBHAI HARILAL SHAH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL
HEIRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHRUT R JANI(6696) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,3.1,3.2
A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,2
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2,1.3
==========================================================
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 219 days in preferring the appeal against the
order dated 23.10.2023 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in Special Civil
Suit No.54 of 2012.
2. It is reported that the rule is served however, none
has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of paras No.3 and 4 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4709/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
application, wherein it stated that the impugned
decree was drawn on 27.10.2023. Certified copy of
the judgement and decree was applied on
01.02.2024 and received on 02.02.2024. Thereafter,
the applicants tried to settle the issue with the
respondents as they respondents are family
members and blood relatives. However, all the efforts
made by the appellants had gone in vein. Therefore,
in the process of obtaining all necessary records of
the suit and hiring an advocate, a delay of 219 days
has caused in filing the present First Appeal
challenging the order impugned. The applicant
further states that balance of convenience lies in
favour of the applicant and he has a strong prima
facie case. The applicant also submits that there is
no willful lethargy or negligence on the part of the
applicant in preferring the present First 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 219
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4709/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
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 219 days caused in preferring the
appeal against the order dated 23.10.2023 passed
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in
Special Civil Suit No.54 of 2012 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
