Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/3443/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 3443 of 2011
In
SECOND
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 15 of 2011
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RANJANBEN
N GANDHI & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3,
6,
MR RR TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI
for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 4 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI
Date
: 06/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present application
has been filed by the State of Gujarat and other applicants –
appellants (original defendant Nos.1,2 and 3) seeking condonation of
delay of 258 days caused in filing the second appeal arising out of
judgment and order dated 18th February 2010 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Main Fast Track Court, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji, in
Regular Civil Appeal No.184 of 2005.
2. It has been submitted
by learned A.G.P. Ms. Pathak for the applicants that the delay
occurred in filing the second appeal has been explained in para 6 of
the application, from which it is clear that the said delay has
occurred due to the procedural formalities, which the applicants were
required to follow for filing the second appeal. According to Ms.
Pathak, some latitude is required to be granted to the Governmental
Authorities as they have to follow long procedure for filing appeals
in the High Court.
3. However, Mr. Trivedi
has strongly opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that the
delay has not been sufficiently explained by the applicants. He has
also submitted that merely because the applicants happened to be the
Government Authorities, that ground alone would not be sufficient to
condone the delay, more particularly, when the delay is of 258 days.
He also submitted that even on merits of second appeal there is no
substance and hence also the present application deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Having regard to the
submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, it
transpires that the applicants have sought to explain the delay which
had occurred in filing the second appeal, as mentioned in para 6 of
the civil application, however, from the bare reading of the said
para it transpires that there was gross negligence and carelessness
on the part of the concerned applicants in not taking the necessary
steps for filing the second appeal immediately after the order of the
lower Appellate Court. It is needless to say that merely because the
applicants happened to be the Government Authorities, that would not
be a ground to treat them differently from that of other litigants in
case of condonation of delay. Though some latitude is not improper in
case where the Government Authorities are the litigants, still the
delay needs to be sufficiently explained by giving cogent reasons,
which the applicants have failed to explain in the instant case. As
rightly submitted by Mr. Trivedi, there is hardly any substance in
the second appeal proposed to be filed by the applicants, inasmuch as
the lower Appellate Court has fastened the liability on the
applicants only to the extent of 20% on each of the applicants out of
the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards the compensation
for the death of Sarojben Bipinchandra Shah. The said liability
fastened by the lower Appellate Court on the present applicants being
a very meager amount, there is hardly any substance in the second
appeal proposed to be filed against the said judgment and order of
the lower Appellate Court. In that view of the matter, the present
application deserves to be dismissed.
5. For the reasons
stated above, the delay having not been sufficiently explained by the
applicants and no sufficient cause having been shown by the
applicants to condone the delay occurred in the second appeal, the
civil application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to cost.
(BELA
TRIVEDI, J.)
jani
Top