Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/1669/2010 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 1669 of 2010
In
SECOND
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 339 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
======================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
COLLECTOR
& 2 - Petitioners
Versus
CHANDUBHAI
THAKURDAS PAGRANI & 2 - Respondents
======================================
Appearance :
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Petitioners.
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI for Respondent
Nos: 1 - 2.
MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent
No.3.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 05/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
present Civil Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has
been preferred by the applicants herein original defendants to
condone the delay of 248 days in preferring the Second Appeal
challenging the judgement and order passed by learned District Judge,
Banaskantha at Palanpur in Civil Appeal No.36 of 2007.
2. Having
heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and considering the averments in the application, it appears
to the Court that delay be condoned on imposition of reasonable cost
to be paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Under
the circumstances, delay caused in preferring the Second Appeal is
hereby condoned on condition that the applicants shall deposit an
amount of Rs.3,000/- with the Registry of this Court on or before
14th June,2010. On deposit of cost, Registry is directed
to pay the same by account payee cheque in favour of respondent No.1
and the cheque be given to Mr.Bachani, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top