Gujarat High Court High Court

Ramchandra vs Raimalbahi on 9 November, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Ramchandra vs Raimalbahi on 9 November, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/4358/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 4358 of 2011
 

In


 

CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION (STAMP NO.) No. 67 of 2011
 

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


 

RAMCHANDRA
CHHAPANBHAI PATANI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

RAIMALBAHI
POPATBHAI PATANI - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PT JASANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR PANKAJ K SONI for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/11/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

By
this application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 44
days that has occasioned in filing Civil Revision Application
(Stamp) No.67 of 2001.

Mr.

P. T. Jasani, learned advocate for the applicant invited attention
to the averments made in the application to submit that the
applicant being a poor person could not arrange for fees and
expenses to be incurred for engaging a lawyer and that the opponent
has taken possession of the suit premises immediately after the stay
period of 30 days was over due to which, the applicant and his
family were thrown out on the streets. That in view of the
aforesaid circumstances, the applicant could not vend fruits in his
handcart and had to search for a hut else where. It is in the
aforesaid circumstances, that there was a delay in filing the
revision application and as such, sufficient and reasonable cause
has been made out so as to condone the delay.

On
the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Soni, learned advocate for the respondent
has opposed the application submitting that the applicant herein has
lost upto the Supreme Court and that on merits, the applicant does
not have any case. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the
delay does not deserve to be condoned.

Having
regard to the averments made in the memorandum of application, it is
apparent that the applicant has sufficiently explained the delay of
44 days that has occurred in filing the revision. Moreover, it is
apparent that there is no deliberate negligence or inaction on the
part of the applicant in filing the revision, nor has he ever given
up the cause. In the circumstances, the application deserves to be
allowed.

For
the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed. The delay of 44
days that has occasioned in filing Civil Revision Application
(Stamp) No.67 of 2001 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute
accordingly, with no order as to costs.

[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]

parmar*

   

Top