SCA/6040/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6040 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 ========================================================= IBRAHIM KALUBHAI MANSURI - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JAYANT P BHATT for Petitioner. MR VIPUL MISTRY, AGP for Respondents. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 26/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Shri Vipul Mistry, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for SCA/6040/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-original appellant has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.3 – competent authority dated 26.3.1998 passed in Eviction Case No.7/94/326 passed under Section 7 of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act as well as the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed in Eviction Appeal No.15 of 2000 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar as well as order dated 27.2.2008 passed in Civil Misc.Application No.82 of 2007 in not condoning the delay of 224 days in preferring the review application. 3. It appears from the record that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the competent authority, petitioner preferred appeal being Eviction Appeal No.15 of 2000, and at the relevant time, one Shri Sharma, learned advocate was engaged and thereafter before the actual decision in the appeal, he was relieved, and consequently Shri A.P.Bhatt, learned advocate was engaged. However, the appearance of Shri Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner was shown and the name of Shri A.P.Bhatt, learned advocate was not shown and nobody remained present on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned appellate court proceeded further with the eviction appeal ex-parte and dismissed the same. Considering the same the SCA/6040/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT petitioner submitted review application before the learned appellate court. However, there was a delay of 224 days in preferring the review application and therefore application for condonation of delay was submitted which came to be dismissed by the learned appellate court dated 27.2.2008 passed in Civil Misc.Application No.82 of 2007. 4. Considering the facts stated hereinabove and when it was the case on behalf of the petitioner- original appellant that earlier one Shri Sharma, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner-original appellant, however he was relieved and one Shri A.P.Bhatt, learned advocate has filed his Vakalatnama, and his appearance was not shown and therefore the matter proceeded further ex- parte, and considering the above, the learned appellate court ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the review application. 5. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions that sufficient cause should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. If the delay would have been condoned in that case the review application will be decided on merits and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned appellate court in not condoning the delay of 228 days in preferring the review application deserves to be quashed and set aside and the learned appellate court is directed to decide the review application on merits. In view of the above, this Court is not considering the other SCA/6040/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT prayer to quash and set aside the order passed by the competent authority as well as the order passed by the learned appellate court passed in Eviction Appeal No.15 of 2000. 6. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds in part. The impugned order dated 27.2.2008 passed in Civil Misc.Application No.82 of 2007 in not condoning the delay of 224 days in preferring the review application is quashed and set aside and the learned appellate court is directed to decide and dispose of the review application which was submitted to review the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed in Eviction Appeal No.15 of 2000 in accordance with law and on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/