@))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION No 5463 of 2001
in
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER)No 7274 of 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANGUBHAI KIKBHAI HALPATI DECDTHRO' HEIRS SHANTABEN M PATEL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. Civil Application No. 5463 of 2001
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Petitioner No. 1-2
.......... for Respondent No. 1
MR JB PARDIWALA for Respondent No. 1/1-1/2,2
RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1/3
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
Date of Order: 25/11/2002
ORAL ORDER
By filing this application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, applicants, State of Gujarat and
Mamlatdar Shree, Navsari have prayed to condone the delay
of 20 days caused in filing the above First Appeal (Stamp
Number) 7274 of 2000 which is directed against the
judgement and decree dated June 30, 2000 rendered in
Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 1991 by the learned Civil
Judge (S.D.), Navsari, by which the suit filed by the
applicants came to be dismissed, on the grounds stated in
the application.
2.The reason as to why the appeal could not be
filed in time are detailed in paragraph 1 of the
application which talk about intra-department
inter-department procedure which has caused the delay in
filing the application. There was no negligence on the
part of the appellants in prosecuting the matter. The
appellants have never abandoned the lis and therefore, it
is prayed to condone the delay.
3.Respondents are duly served. Mr. J.B.Pardiwala,
learned advocate appears for them and states that
appropriate order may be passed having regard to the
settled law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
matters of; (i) State of Bihar & Others v. Kamleshwar
Prasad Singh & another, 2000 AIR SCW 2388 (para 11 to 14
of the reported judgement, (ii) N.Balakrishnan v. M
Krishnanmurthy, Judgement Today 1998 (6) SC 242, (iii)
State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & Others, AIR 1996 SC
1623, (iv) Spl. Tehsildars, Land Acquisition, Kerala v.
K.V.Ayisumma, AIR 1996 SC 2750, (v) Punjab Small
Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. and others v.
Union of India and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 681, (vi)
P.K.Ramachandran v. State of Kerala & another (1997) 7
SCC 566 and (vii) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and other relevant
decisions on the point.
4.Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court to the facts of the present case, and more
particularly uncontroverted versions on which the delay
is sought to be condoned, I am satisfied that sufficient
cause is made out by the applicants for condonation of
delay. The record does not indicate that there was any
inaction or negligence on the part of the applicants in
prosecuting the appeal. The explanation for delay
offered by the applicants is not only plausible but
acceptable and, therefore, the application deserves to be
granted.
5.For the foregoing reasons, the application
succeeds. Delay caused in filing the above numbered
appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute with no order
as to costs.
Registry is directed to register the appeal and
notify the First Appeal for admission hearing on
9.12.2002.
(A.M.Kapadia,J)
Jayanti*