Gujarat High Court High Court

Maganlal vs State on 10 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Maganlal vs State on 10 December, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice D.Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/14946/2007	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 14946 of 2007
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

MAGANLAL
G PANDYA & 3 - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
GM JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5,3.2.6 -
4. 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. 
MR HS MUNSHAW
for Respondent(s) : 5, 7, 
MR PV HATHI for Respondent(s) :
6, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 10/01/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

Heard
learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the applicants, learned AGP Ms.Tanuja
Kachchhi for opponent nos.1,2,3 and 4, Mr.Munshaw for opponent nos.5
and 7 and Ms.Hathi for opponent no.6.

It
is stated by learned advocate Mr.Joshi that applicant no.3 Dahyalal J
Pandya who expired on 1.3.1996 was in fact represented through his
legal heirs and representatives at the time of filing of appeal and
as such there is no question of his heirs praying for condonation of
delay.

Considering
the peculiar facts of the case what is indicated in the application,
we are inclined to entertain this application for condonation of
delay.

However,
Mr.Munshaw has opposed this application on the ground that it is not
possible to believe that legal representatives would not pursue the
litigation for such a long time. This submission is purely
hypothetical and considering the complexion of Indian society, we are
inclined to believe the say of the applicants, where at times legal
heirs may not be aware about the existence of such litigation.

Under
the circumstances, delay caused in coming on record by the legal
representatives of the applicants except legal heirs of Dahyalal J
Pandya deserves to be condoned and the same is condoned.

Application
is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.

(
A.L.DAVE, J )

(
SHARAD D DAVE, J )

srilatha

   

Top