CA/2214/2008 4/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2214 of 2008 In FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 2002 of 2007 ========================================================= RASILABEN DINESHBHAI SOJITRA - Applicant(s) Versus VINODBHAI NATHABHAI PARMAR & 2 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS PAURAMI B SHETH for applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 RULE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, MR BHAVIN S RAIYANI for Opponent(s) : 2, MR HASMUKH THAKKER for Opponent(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.H.SHUKLA Date : 01/07/2008 ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1. By
filing instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (‘the Act’ for short), the applicants have prayed to condone
delay of 493 days caused in filing the above stamp-numbered First
Appeal, which is directed against the judgment and award dated
20.9.2005 rendered by the M.A.C. Tribunal (Aux.) (FTC), Rajkot in
MACP No.388 of 2001, on the grounds stated in the application.
2. Reasons
as to why the appeal could not be filed in time are detailed in
paras 4 and 5 of the application. It is pleaded that there was
sufficient cause on the part of the applicants for not filing the
appeal in time. It is therefore prayed to condone the delay.
3. We
have considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Paurami B Sheth,
learned advocate for the applicants, Mr. Bhavin S Raiyani, learned
advocate for opponent No.2 and Mr. Hasmukh Thakker, learned advocate
for opponent No.3. Though served, opponent No.1 has not appeared and
contested the application. We have also considered the celebrated
principles governing the discretionary exercise of powers under
Section 5 of the Act and the reported decisions of the Supreme Court
construing Section 5 of the Act liberally.
4. So
far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned, it has to
be decided having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in the case of (i) State of Bihar & others v. Kamleshwar
Prasad Singh & another, AIR 2000 SC 2306 (paras 11 to 14 of the
reported judgment), (ii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy,
Judgment 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 Limited and others v. Union
of India and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 681, (vi) P.K. Ramachandran
v. State of Kerala and 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.
5. Applying
the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred
to judgments to the facts of the present case, we are 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.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and accordingly it is
allowed. Delay of 493 days caused in filing the above stamp-numbed
First Appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute. No order as to
costs.
(A.M.
Kapadia, J.)
(R.H.
Shukla, J.)
…
(karan)