Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2851/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2851 of 2010
In
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4785 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 4039 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 6027 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4785 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 4039 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 6027 of 2009
=========================================================
VAGHRI
LABHUBEN TEJASBHAI THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
M/S
THAKKAR ASSOC. for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MS MINI NAIR, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 06/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
Heard
Mr.Pahwa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.Nair,
learned AGP upon advance copy.
It
is an admitted position that there was delay of 2970 days which has
been condoned by the learned Single Judge against which the present
appeal. As such, in the decision of the learned Single Judge, the
reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Naubat Ram Sharma Vs. Additional District Judge, reported in AIR
1987 SC 1352, which is a decision under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India and not under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
However, Mr.Pahwa fairly submitted that the learned Single Judge
wanted to refer to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Khatiji, which is reported
on the next page, i.e., AIR 1987 SC 1353. Even if the decision in
the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Khatiji
reported at AIR 1987 SC 1353 is to be considered, the same has been
subsequently considered by the Apex Court itself in its subsequent
decision in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 459 wherein the Apex Court after considering the
aforesaid decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag Vs. Khatiji, has observed at paras 14 to 16 as under:
“14.We
have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is
founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe
limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties
but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek
remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be
kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it
differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which
legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the
same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the
delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy
within the stipulated time.
15. The
expression “sufficient cause” employed in Section 5 ofthe
Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic
enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner
which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule
can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of
delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal
approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter
approach where the delay is inordinate – Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and
Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil.
16. In
dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on
behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court
has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for
deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private
individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude
is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents
collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the
officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing
the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing
delay – G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, State of
Haryana v. Chandra Mani, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, State of
Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu, State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO, and State
(NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan.”
Thereafter,
the delay of 4 years which was condoned by the High Court was not
upheld by the Apex Court. It was also submitted by the learned
counsel that the affidavit-in-reply has been filed, but no reasons
are mentioned dealing with the same.
The
learned counsel for the appellant has further placed on record the
copy of the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the learned Single
Judge in the First Appeal, whereby while adjourning the matter to
10.12.2010, the cost is imposed of Rs.5,000/- upon the appellant
herein who is respondent in the appeal before the learned Single
Judge. It was submitted that since the LPA was to come up today on
board, the motion of adjournment was made and upon the said motion,
the learned Single Judge has passed the order.
Hence,
Notice returnable no 20.12.2010. By ad interim order, the further
proceedings before the learned Single Judge of First Appeal
No.4039/10 shall remain stayed with the further direction that the
appellant shall also maintain status quo of the property in
question.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(S.
R. BRAHMBHATT, J.)
*bjoy
  Â
Top