Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/5636/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 5636 of 2010
=========================================
SARJITKAUR
WD/O HARMINDERSINH S MATYANA & OTHERS
Versus
LAXMANSINH
AMARSINH SOLANKI AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
MR YATIN
SONI for
the Applicants
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MS
MAYA DESAI, for Respondent No.2
MR
VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 3,
None for Respondent(s) :
4,
MR HB SINGH for Respondent(s) : 5,
MR KK NAIR for
Respondent(s) : 6,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 27/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER)
1. Present
application, i.e. Civil Application No.5636 of 2010, has been taken
out by the applicants seeking condonation of delay of 95 days caused
in filing Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.966 of 2010.
2. The
applicants herein appear to have presented an appeal, being First
Appeal (Stamp) No.5141 of 2007. Presentation of the appeal was
delayed. Therefore, an application, being Civil Application No.6115
of 2008, was filed with a request that the delay caused in presenting
the appeal may be condoned. For the reasons mentioned in order dated
11.12.2009, the said Civil Application was rejected. It appears that
the applicants desire that the order dated 11.12.2009 in Civil
Application No.6115 of 2008 may be recalled. Hence, it was necessary
for the applicants to prefer appropriate application. However,
presentation of the said application was also delayed by the
applicants. Ultimately, after causing delay of 95 days, present
applicants filed Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.966 of 2010,
seeking restoration of Civil Application No.6115 of 2008.
Consequently, it became necessary for the applicants to seek
condonation of delay of 95 days caused in filing the above-mentioned
Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.966 of 2010 and that, therefore,
the applicants have preferred present application, i.e. Civil
Application No.5636 of 2010.
3. Mr.
Soni, learned advocate, has appeared for the applicants, Mr.
Nanavati, learned advocate, has appeared for respondent No.3, Mr.
Nair, learned advocate, has appeared for respondent No.6 and Mr.
Singh, learned advocate, has entered his appearance for respondent
No.5, however today, at the time of hearing, he is not present. Ms.
Desai, learned advocate, has appeared for respondent No.2.
4. The
applicants have explained the reasons in paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the
application, which caused delay in filing the Misc. Civil Application
(Stamp) No.966 of 2010. Since we are otherwise also satisfied with
applicants’ explanation, we, having regard to the fact that the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2,3 and 6 have graciously extended
their consent without recording reasons in detail, deem it
appropriate to condone the delay of 95 days caused in preferring
Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.966 of 2010. Accordingly, the
application is allowed. Delay of 95 days caused in filing Misc.
Civil Application (Stamp) No.966 of 2010 is condoned. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
5. Office
is directed to restore Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.966 of 2010
to its original file.
(K.M.
THAKER, J.)
(G.B.
SHAH, J.)
omkar
Top
