SCA/8729/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8729 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= AMARSINH VARVAJI WAGHELA & 4 - Petitioner(s) Versus JASWANTSINH SAJJANSINH WAGHELADECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & 3 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR.DIPAK B PATEL for Petitioners : 1 - 5. MR VIKRAM J THAKOR for Respondents : 1 - 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 05/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.Vikram J.Thakor, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned advocates SCA/8729/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT appearing for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners-original plaintiffs have prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.4, Gandhinagar in not condoning the delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed below Exh.5 and Exh.20 dated 19.7.2007 passed by the trial court passed in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2007. 2.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed below Exh.5 and Exh.20, the petitioners herein-original plaintiffs have preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Gandhinagar. However, as there was a delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal and therefore the petitioners submitted an application to condone the delay. Having observed that no sufficient cause has been made out, the learned appellate court has dismissed the said application. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present Special Civil Application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is true that no detail cause is shown in support of the prayer to condone the delay of 160 SCA/8729/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT days, however considering the fact that the petitioners are the agriculturists and there is no specific case that deliberately with a malafide intention, the appeal has been filed belatedly, and considering the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by which it is observed that the “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally, it appears to the Court that on payment of reasonable cost, the delay be condoned and the petitioners be given an opportunity to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting the petitioners on the technical ground of delay. (i) N.Balakrishnan vs. M.Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. (ii) State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani and others, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132. (iii) Sakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 575. 4. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above and considering the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 24.3.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.4, Gandhinagar in Civil Misc.Application No.15 of 2008 in not condoning the delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal is quashed and set aside and the delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal against the order SCA/8729/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT passed below Exh.5 and Exh.20 dated 19.7.2007 passed by the trial court passed in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2007 is hereby condoned, on condition that the petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.2 within four weeks from today, and on such payment the respondent No.2 shall issue the receipt. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/