Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/15771/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 15771 of 2010
In
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP NO.) No. 128 of 2010
=========================================================
ANJANA
DALJIBHAI DEVJIBHAI & 3 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NP CHAUDHARY for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 4.MRTUSHARCHAUDHARY for Petitioner(s) : 1 -
4.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR SP MAJMUDAR for
Respondent(s) : 2,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 20/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Tushar Chaudhary on behalf of applicant,
learned advocate Mr. SP Majmudar on behalf of respondent no. 2,
learned AGP Ms. Vandana Bhatt appearing for respondent no. 1. Rule
served to respondent no. 3 but no appearance is filed by respondent
no. 3.
The
present application is filed by applicant with a prayer to condone
delay of 128 days in filing CRA. The respondent no. 2 and 3 have
filed affidavit in reply opposing delay condone application as
prayed by applicant while making specific averment made in para 3,
which is quoted as under:
“3. I
further say that the date on which the impugned order was received
by the application is shown as a blank in the copy supplied to the
answering respondent. Hence, it cannot be said that the petition
was filed within the period of limitation as averred in the
application.”
It
is necessary to consider order passed by this Court in SCA no.
9292/2010 dated 11/8/2010, which is quoted as under:
“1. Considering
judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of Babaji Kondaji
Mali Vs. Bala Fakira Mahar, reported in 1938 BLR (Vol.40) Page 104;
in the case of Dalpat Zopdoo Patil Vs. Mahadu Uka, reported in 1912
BLR (Vol.14) Page 259; and in the case of Purshottam Janardhan
Chaphakar Vs. Mahadu Pandu Turmalkar, reported in 1912 BLR (Vol14)
Page 947, revision application is maintainable against the order
passed by the Deputy Collector. Shri Chaudhary, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that he may be
permitted to file a revision application and that it may cause some
delay in doing so. It will be open for the petitioners to contend in
the revision application that they were prosecuting the present
Special Civil Application, and, therefore, there is delay in filing
the same and the same may be considered while deciding the
application for condonation of delay.
2. With this
observation and liberty in favour of the petitioners to file revision
application, the present Special Civil Application is dismissed.”
I
have considered submission made by learned advocates appearing for
respective parties. In light of aforesaid fact, which found from
record and considering averment made in present application as well
as in reply by other side and also considering recent decision of
Apex Court reported in 2011 (1) SCC 117.
According to my opinion, sufficient cause has shown by applicant for
condoning delay of 128 days in filing present CRA to the
satisfaction of this Court. Therefore, delay is condoned by this
Court in filing Civil Revision Application.
Accordingly,
Rule is made absolute.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top