Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1332/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 1332 of 2010
In
SECOND
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 3 of 2010
=========================================================
JAYANTILAL
BHURABHAI GOHEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANUBHAI
BHURABHAI GOHEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BC RUPERA FOR MS KRISHNA U MISHRA
for
Petitioner.
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for
Respondent.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 13/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates for both the sides.
This
is an application preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condoning the delay of 660 days caused in preferring Second Appeal.
Mr.
Rupera, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that because of
the circumstances which were beyond his control, the applicant could
not approach the High Court in time. As the applicant could not
obtain certified copy and contact the lawyer, the appeal could not be
filed in time, and therefore the delay was caused, and the delay
requires to be condoned.
Learned
advocate for the respondent submitted that in pursuance of the decree
passed by the Court below, Execution Application No. 19 of 2008 was
preferred and in pursuance thereof, possession of the land in
question has already been taken over on 15.12.2009 and even panchnama
in respect thereof has been drawn. He submitted that in view of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, nothing remains in the Second
Appeal, and the application does not call for any interference and it
deserves to be dismissed.
Having
considered the rival submission and on perusal of the averments made
in the application as well as the endorsement made by the bailfiff in
Execution Application No. 19 of 2008 and the panchnama by which
possession is taken over, nothing remains in the Second Appeal.
In
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is called for and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
mathew [H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
Top