{"id":258431,"date":"2010-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-14T07:11:07","modified_gmt":"2018-01-14T01:41:07","slug":"civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P.B.Majmudar,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1097 of 2000\n\n\n\n\n     For Approval and Signature:\n\n\n\n              Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR\n\n\n     ============================================================\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">    1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed      : NO<br \/>\n       to see the judgements?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  : NO<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">    3. Whether Their Lordships     wish to see the fair copy   : NO<br \/>\n       of the judgement?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">    4. Whether this case involves a substantial question       : NO<br \/>\n       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution<br \/>\n       of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">    5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned       : NO<br \/>\n       Magistrate\/Magistrates,Judge\/Judges,Tribunal\/Tribunals?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n     ABDULLA AHMED HAJI ISAM DADA<br \/>\nVersus<br \/>\n     DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br \/>\n     Appearance:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     1. Civil Revision Application No. 1097 of 2000<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">          MR YN RAVANI for Petitioner No. 1<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">          NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">          MR AJAY R MEHTA for Respondent No. 2<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">          MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for Respondent No. 3<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">     &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR<\/p>\n<p>     Date of decision: 25\/11\/2002<\/p>\n<p>ORAL JUDGEMENT<br \/>\n #. Rule. Mr.Ajay Mehta waives service of rule for<br \/>\nrespondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Dhirendra Mehta waives<br \/>\nservice of rule for respondent No.3. With the consent of<br \/>\nthe parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing<br \/>\ntoday.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">#.   The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Appeal under<br \/>\nSection 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the<br \/>\nDistrict Court, Bharuch.     In filing the said appeal,<br \/>\nthere is a delay of about 5 months and few days.      The<br \/>\npetitioner   herein,   submitted   the   application for<br \/>\ncondonation of delay and the reason given in the said<br \/>\napplication is that, since the mother of the petitioner<br \/>\nwas not keeping good health, he was busy in looking after<br \/>\nhis ailing mother and in the meanwhile, his sister also<br \/>\ncame from foreign country to look after his ailing<br \/>\nmother. Under these circumstances, since the petitioner<br \/>\nwas mentally   disturbed,   delay   has occurred.     The<br \/>\nAssistant Judge, Bharuch, however, came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the petitioner has not produced any satisfactory<br \/>\nevidence to substantiate his case and even there is no<br \/>\nsufficient cause to condone the delay.       Under these<br \/>\ncircumstances, delay was not condoned and the appeal of<br \/>\nthe petitioner is not heard for want of registration.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">#.   I have    heard   all   the concerned advocates for the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">#. In my view, the Appellate Court has not properly<br \/>\nconsidered the scope of <a href=\"\/doc\/100581\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 5<\/a> of the Limitation Act.<br \/>\nThe Apex Court, in the case       of   Collector,   Land<br \/>\nAcquisition, Anantnag and another Vs Mst.Katiji and<br \/>\nothers, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1353, has laid down<br \/>\ncertain   principles   for deciding the delay condone<br \/>\napplications. The Apex Court has held in para 3 as<br \/>\nunder.:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\"> &#8220;The   legislature has conferred the power to<br \/>\n         condone delay by enacting S.5 of the Indian<br \/>\n         Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the<br \/>\n         Courts to do substantial justice to parties by<br \/>\n         disposing of matters on &#8216;merits&#8217;. The expression<br \/>\n         &#8220;sufficient cause&#8221; employed by the legislature is<br \/>\n         adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply<br \/>\n         the law in a meaningful manner which subserves<br \/>\n         the ends of justice that being the life-purpose<br \/>\n         for the existence of the institution of Courts.<br \/>\n         It is common knowledge that this Court has been<br \/>\n         making a justifiably liberal approach in matters<br \/>\n         instituted in this Court. But the message does<br \/>\n         not appear to have percolated down to all the<br \/>\n          other Courts in the hierachy. And such a liberal<br \/>\n         approach is adopted on principle as it        is<br \/>\n         realized that :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">1.Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to<br \/>\n       benefit by lodging an appeal late.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">2.Refusing to condone delay can result in a<br \/>\n       meritorious matter being thrown out at the very<br \/>\n       threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As<br \/>\n       against this when delay is condoned the highest<br \/>\n       that can happen is that a cause would be decided<br \/>\n       on merits after hearing the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">3.&#8221;Every day&#8217;s delay must be explained&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>       does not mean that a pedantic approach should be<br \/>\n       made. Why not every hour&#8217;s delay, every second&#8217;s<br \/>\n       delay ?    The doctrine must be applied in a<br \/>\n       rational common sense pragmatic manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_17\">4.When    substantial justice and technical<br \/>\n         considerations are pitted against each other,<br \/>\n         cause of substantial justice deserves to be<br \/>\n         preferred for the other side cannot claim to have<br \/>\n         vested right in injustice being done because of a<br \/>\n         non-deliberate delay.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">5.There is no presumption that delay is<br \/>\n       occasioned   deliberately,   or   on account of<br \/>\n       culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides.<br \/>\n       A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting<br \/>\n       to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">6.It   must be grasped that judiciary is<br \/>\n        respected not on account of its power to legalize<br \/>\n        injustice on technical grounds but because it is<br \/>\n        capable of removing injustice and is expected to<br \/>\n        do so.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">Making    a justice-oriented approach from this<br \/>\n         perspective, there was sufficient cause       for<br \/>\n         condoning the delay in the institution of the<br \/>\n         appeal. The fact that it was the &#8216;State&#8217; which<br \/>\n         was seeking condonation and not a private party<br \/>\n         was altogether irrelevant.     The doctrine    of<br \/>\n         equality before law demands that all litigants,<br \/>\n         including the State as a litigant, are accorded<br \/>\n         the same treatment and the law is administered in<br \/>\n         an even-handed manner.    There is no warrant for<br \/>\n         according a stepmotherly treatment when       the<br \/>\n         &#8216;State&#8217; is the applicant praying for condonation<br \/>\n           of delay.    In fact experience shows that on<br \/>\n          account of an impersonal machinery (no one in<br \/>\n          charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by<br \/>\n          the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal)<br \/>\n          and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued<br \/>\n          with   the    note-making,  file   pushing,   and<br \/>\n          passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is<br \/>\n          less difficult to approve.   In any event, the<br \/>\n          State which represents the collective cause of<br \/>\n          the community, does not deserve a litigant non<br \/>\n          grata status.     The Courts therefore have to<br \/>\n          inform with the spirit and philosophy of the<br \/>\n          provision in the course of the interpretation of<br \/>\n          the expression &#8220;sufficient cause&#8221;. So also the<br \/>\n          same   approach    has to be evidenced in its<br \/>\n          application to matters at hand with the end in<br \/>\n          view to do even-handed justice on merits in<br \/>\n          preference to the approach which scuttles a<br \/>\n          decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the<br \/>\n          matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are<br \/>\n          satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the<br \/>\n          delay. The order of the High Court dismissing<br \/>\n          the   appeal    before   it as time barred, is<br \/>\n          therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned.      And<br \/>\n          the matter is remitted to the High Court. The<br \/>\n          High Court will now dispose of the appeal on<br \/>\n          merits after affording reasonable opportunity of<br \/>\n          hearing to both the sides.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">In my view, the appellate Court should have condoned the<br \/>\ndelay considering the averments made in the         delay<br \/>\ncondonation application and instead of rejecting the said<br \/>\napplication, the appellate Court should have registered<br \/>\nthe appeal filed by the petitioner.         Under   these<br \/>\ncircumstances, the application of the petitioner is<br \/>\nallowed. Delay is condoned. Effect of this order is<br \/>\nthat, now the Registry of the District Court will<br \/>\nregister the appeal of the petitioner, and, thereafter,<br \/>\nthe appellate Court shall decide the said appeal on its<br \/>\nown merits and in accordance with law.       Mr.Dhirendra<br \/>\nMehta states that, respondent No.3 may be awarded costs<br \/>\nin case the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.   The<br \/>\nsaid request   is   reasonable.      In   the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to<br \/>\npay costs of Rs.500\/- (Rupees five hundred only) to<br \/>\nrespondent No.3. Such costs to be deposited before the<br \/>\nappellate Court within a period of one month from today.<br \/>\nThe respondent No.3 will be entitled to withdraw the<br \/>\naforesaid amount unconditionally.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">#.   In   view   of   what   is   stated   above, this revision<br \/>\n application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the<br \/>\nextent indicated above with costs, as quantified above.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">(P.B.Majmudar,J)<br \/>\n(pathan)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010 Author: P.B.Majmudar,&amp;Nbsp; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1097 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon&#8217;ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Civil Revision Application No. ... vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not ... on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Civil Revision Application No. ... vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not ... on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-14T01:41:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-14T01:41:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1271,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Civil Revision Application No. ... vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not ... on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-14T01:41:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Civil Revision Application No. ... vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not ... on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Civil Revision Application No. ... vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not ... on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-14T01:41:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-14T01:41:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010"},"wordCount":1271,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010","name":"Civil Revision Application No. ... vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not ... on 2 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-14T01:41:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/civil-revision-application-no-vs-ordinarily-a-litigant-does-not-on-2-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Civil Revision Application No. &#8230; vs Ordinarily A Litigant Does Not &#8230; on 2 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}