Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Rajeshkumar on 16 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Rajeshkumar on 16 August, 2010
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/8266/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8266 of 2010
 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1241 of 2009
 

To


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8278 of 2010
 

In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1253 of 2009
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 -
Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

RAJESHKUMAR
SOMABHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
NJ SHAH, AGP  for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. 
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/08/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

The
Civil Applications have been filed by the present applicants for
condoning the delay of 200 days caused in preferring First
Appeals.

I
have heard learned AGP, Mr.N.J.Shah for the applicants and also
gone through the reasons mentioned in the Civil Applications on
oath regarding condonation of delay. Mr.N.J.Shah submits that
though rule is duly served to all the respondents, none appeared on
their behalf. However, as concerned Officer is not present, direct
service affidavit is not placed on record. He assures that within a
week, he will place on record the direct service affidavit. Reasons
as to why appeals could not be filed in time are stated in paras 2
and 3 of the applications.

In
view of the fact that the reasons stated in the applications
have not been controverted by the otherside by filing an
affidavit and also in view of the principles governing the
discretionary exercise of power under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, I am of the view that sufficient cause has been stated for
not filing the appeals in time and hence, delay caused in filing
appeals is to be condoned and civil applications are required to be
allowed.

For
the aforesaid reasons, applications are allowed. Delay of
200 days caused in filing First Appeals is condoned. Rule is made
absolute.

(M.D.SHAH,J.)

radhan

   

Top