Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/14795/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 14795 of 2010
In
SECOND
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 159 of 2010
With
SECOND
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 159 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) No. 8751 of 2010
In
SECOND APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 159 of 2010
=========================================================
RAVJIBHAI
KHIMABHAI SAVALIYA THROUGH POA KESHUBHAI RAVJIBHA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DHIRUBHAI
HARIBHAI SAVALIYA & 8 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MB PARIKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
9.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Rule.
2. Heard
learned counsel Mr. Parikh for the appellant. The Second Appeal has
been sought to be preferred posing the substantial questions of law
as follow:
(1) Whether
the judgment, order and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court
quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.08.2007
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Special
Civil Suit No. 1 of 2002 and remanding the matter back by framing an
issue as to whether defendant has proved the will dated 27.12.1971
and to what effect is correct?
(2) Whether
the judgment and order of remand is sustainable in view of the
plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case?
(3) Whether
the judgment and order of remand the case to the trial Court is bad
in law in view of the facts that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was
barred by law of limitation.
(4) Whether
judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court for remand
the matter and directing the defendant to prove the will is contrary
to the law itself?
3. Thus,
the Second Appeal has been preferred challenging the impugned order
passed by the lower Appellate Court remanding the matter back to the
trial Court for deciding afresh with regard to a particular issue
regarding the will. There is a delay in filing the Second Appeal and
therefore the aforesaid Civil Application No. 14795 of 2010 has been
preferred for condonation of delay of 383 days on the grounds set out
in this application.
4. Having
heard the learned counsel, the explanations offered do not justify
the condonation of delay. Though, normally, the delay is condoned
with liberal approach. However, considering the facts and
circumstances with regard to the grounds mentioned for justifying the
delay cannot be said to be sufficient and as there is no sufficient
cause made out for condonation of delay, present Civil Application
deserves to be rejected. Hence, the application stands rejected.
5. In
view of the order passed in Civil Application for condonation of
delay refusing to condone the delay, Second Appeal Stamp No.159 of
2010 as well as Civil Application Stamp No.
8751 of 2010 for
stay do not survive and shall stand dismissed
accordingly. Rule discharged.
(RAJESH
H. SHUKLA, J.)
jani
Top