CRA/168/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 168 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = DILIP JAYANTILAL VAIDYA & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus MANJULABEN DHARMIKLAL PANDYA & 3 - Opponent(s) ========================================= = Appearance : MR NILESH M SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1 – 2. MR MAYANK DESAI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. RULE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 2, MR NK MAJMUDAR for Opponent(s) : 2.2.1, 2.2.2,2.2.3 MR NAGESH C SOOD for Opponent(s) : 3, MR BIJU A NAIR for Opponent(s) : 4, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CRA/168/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Mayank Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf the applicants, Shri N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for opponents nos. 2.1 to 2.3 and other learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. By way of this present Civil Revision Application, the applicants have prayed for appropriate order or direction and to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara dated 21/09/2007 in Civil Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No. 1/2006 by not condoning the delay of 206 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 14/10/2005 dismissing the suit. 3. Shri Mayank Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has submitted that as such the delay would be only of 55 days and not of 206 days and there is an error in mentioning the number of days. 4. Be that as it may, as this Court proposes to allow the present Civil Revision Application by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, it makes no difference if there is a delay of 55 days or 206 days, as prima facie it appears that sufficient cause is made out by the applicants to condone the delay. 5. It appears that the judgement and decree came to be passed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 14/10/2005 dismissing the suit and a copy of the same was applied on 25/10/2005, which was received by the applicants on 29/10/2005, and, thereafter, there was vacation and the papers CRA/168/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT were handed over to the learned advocate to prefer the appeal. However, for some reason, he did not prefer the appeal and, therefore, when the appeal was preferred there was delay. 6. Shri N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opponents has submitted that as such the suit against opponent no. 2 was already abated and the same has not been challenged. It is to be noted that the same is not the subject matter of the present Civil Revision Application and what is required to be considered in the present Civil Revision Application is whether the learned Principal District Judge was right in dismissing the application for condonation of delay or not. 7. Considering the averments made in the application and the chronological events, it cannot be said that the applicants were negligent and there was any deliberate malafide intention on the part of the applicants in preferring the appeal belatedly. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision, sufficient cause should be construed liberally. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara dated 21/09/2007 in Civil Miscellaneous (Delay) Application No. 1/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay caused in preferring the appeal, against the judgement and decree passed below Exh. 138 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1515/1990, is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly. CRA/168/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT (M.R. SHAH, J.) siji