CA/2549/2008 2/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL [CASE NUMBER] In [CASE NUMBER] To [CASE NUMBER] In [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] - Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 5 - Respondent(s) Appearance : (MR [ENTITY]) for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR [ENTITY] for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2, 5, DELETED for Respondent(s) : 3, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 4, MR [ENTITY] for Respondent(s) : 6, MR [ENTITY] for Respondent(s) : 6, CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 20/06/2008 COMMON ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY])
1. By filing instant batch of seven Civil Applications under [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('the Act' for short), the applicant [ENTITY], has prayed to condone delay of 167 days caused in filing the above stamp-numbered First Appeals which are directed against the judgment and award dated 13.2.2007 passed in [CASE NUMBER], by the MACT (Aux.) Vadodara, on the grounds stated in the application.
2. Reasons as to why the appeals could not be filed in time are detailed in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the application, which talk about the intra-departmental and inter-departmental procedures in the office of the appellant.
3. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for opponents/claimants in [CASE NUMBER]. We have also perused the averments made in the applications which have remained uncontroverted and also the celebrated principles governing the discretionary exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the Act and the reported decisions of the Supreme Court construing [SECTION] of the Act liberally.
4. So far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned, it has to be decided having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of (i) [PRECEDENT] (paras 11 to 14 of the reported judgment), (ii) [PRECEDENT], Judgment Today, 1998 (6) SC 242, (iii) [PRECEDENT], (iv) [PRECEDENT], (v) [PRECEDENT], (vi) [PRECEDENT] and (vii) [PRECEDENT] and other relevant decisions on the point.
5. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out by the applicant for condonation of delay. The record does not indicate that there was any inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant in prosecuting the first appeals. The applicant has never abandoned the lis. The explanation for delay offered by the applicant is not only plausible but acceptable and, therefore, the application deserves to be granted.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the applications succeed and accordingly they are allowed. Delay of 167 days caused in filing the above stamp-numbered First Appeals is condoned. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
7. Registry is directed to list the First Appeals for admission hearing after removal of office objections, if any.
(A.M. Kapadia, J.) (R.H. Shukla, J.)
(karan)