Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Kl Dave For on 2 August, 2011

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD



     LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 3 of 1996


           in


     FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No 4861     of 1992




     For Approval and Signature:



                Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL
                                   and
                Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL


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

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?

4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

————————————————————–
HARIJAN MENSI MEPA
Versus
HARIJAN SIDI KHETA

————————————————————–
Appearance:

MR PV HATHI for Appellant No. 1
MR KL DAVE for Respondent No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 2

————————————————————–

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL
and
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date of decision: 09/01/2002

ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL)
#. Being aggrieved by the order made by the learned
Single Judge in Civil Application No. 3753 of 1992 in
First Appeal (Stamp) No. 4861 of 1992, the appellants
have preferred this appeal. By an order dated 13.1.1994,
the learned Single Judge rejected the application
submitted by the appellant under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay. It seems that
on the ground that the appellants have abandoned the idea
of preferring an appeal and after the lapse of about 9
months, they thought it fit to take a chance before the
High Court by preferring appeal, the learned Single Judge
arrived at a conclusion that it is a fit case where delay
is not required to be condoned. No doubt that the appeal
is preferred after the prescribed period of limitation.

It may be noted that the appeal was preferred by the
appellants as indigent persons and the order passed by
the learned Single Judge was exparte order. It is
contended in the application preferred under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act that the applicants are illiterate and
are residing at a distant village in Talaja taluka. It
was further contended that with a view to earn
livelihood, the applicant no. 1 who was looking after
the litigation had been to Surat and/or Valsad district
and was working as a labourer in the field of sugarcane.
The said place was far away from the place where the
applicant was residing. It is also contended that the
advocate was engaged by them and applicant no. 1 did not
come to know about the disposal of the suit as he was in
Surat and/or Valsad district. It is also contended that
the applicant no.1 was under bonafide impression that the
suit was not disposed of till the inquiry was made on 1st
February, 1992.

#. In view of these facts, we allow this appeal and the
order made by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set
aside. Resultantly, the application namely Civil
Application No. 3753 of 1992 submitted by the appellants

– original applicants shall be placed for admission and
the learned Single Judge shall pass appropriate order in
the said Civil Application.

[B.C. PATEL, J.][ PATEL, J.]
******
pirzada/-