Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1740/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1740 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 5829 of 2009
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1753 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 5842 of 2009
=========================================================
SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RATNASINH
NARSINH SURATIYA - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
UMESH TRIVEDI, ADDL. GP
for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 25/06/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned Addl. G.P., appearing for the applicants.
Though served, no one has entered appearance for the respondent.
This
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed for
condonation of delay of 541 days caused in filing the above first
appeal.
Having
regard to the averements made in the application and upon taking into
consideration the submissions made by the learned Addl. G.P. for the
applicants, it emerges that the applicants cannot be said to be
negligent in filing the appeals and that the delay which has occurred
in filing the appeal, occurred on account of reasons mentioned in the
application. The applicants have tendered sufficient explanations
regarding the delay caused in filing the appeals which, in the facts
of the case, is sufficient for the purpose on hand. It also comes out
from the applications that the delay is not result of any malafide or
extraneous reason. Furthermore, though served opponent has not
entered appearance and has not opposed the application or disputed
the explanation given in the application and the explanation has
remained uncontroverted. Sufficient cause has also been made out by
the applicants, in support of the relief prayed for. Hence, there is
satisfactory explanation coupled with sufficient cause and absence of
any malafide or extraneous reasons. Therefore, relief prayed for in
paragraph 5(a) deserves to be granted. Hence, the delay of 541 days
caused in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed
in terms of para 5(a).
Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.M.Thaker,
J.)
Suresh*
Top