Allowed

Mamlatdar v. Kamal U Amarnani

Gujarat HC3 Feb 2020CA/3012/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat, in an oral order, considered an application for condonation of a 718-day delay in filing a second appeal. The appellant cited official election duties and internal bureaucratic delays as grounds. The Court found the explanation satisfactory and condoned the delay, granting the application.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 718 days in preferring the second appeal is condoned. Rule made absolute.

Mamlatdar Vs Kamal U Amarnani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2020)

¶1

C/CA/3012/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3012 of 2019 In F/SECOND APPEAL NO. 27663 of 2019

¶4

==========================================================

MAMLATDAR

Versus

KAMAL U AMARNANI

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR BHARGAV PANDYA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4,5,6

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI Date : 03/02/2020

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

Civil Application seeks condonation of delay of 718 days in preferring the captioned Second appeal. Second appeal proposes to assail the appellate order which restored the plaint on the file of the trial court which was rejected being barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ( for short 'C.P.C'.).

¶15

The substantial question which is sought to be raised is whether delay in institution of suit itself beyond the period of limitation can be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act?

¶16

The explanation for the delayed second appeal is thus:

¶17

Sr.	Date	Particular
No..
1	09/05/17	Learned A Gandhidham	dditional Di was pleaded	strict to	Judge, allow the
		Regular Civil	Appeal No. 1	of	2016 and
		quashed and	set aside the	judg	ement and

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/CA/3012/2019 ORDER

¶20

		decree dated 28.08.2015 in Regular Civil Suit No. 483 of 2006 and declared that Respondents herein is entitled to get earthquake relief compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-.
2	02.05.2017 to 07.12.2017	The concerned office and its officers were on duty of the State Legislative Assembly Election -2017. Therefore, proposal for preferring appeal before this Hon'ble Court could not be prepared.
3	09.12.2017 to 18.12.2017	The concerned officer was allotted election duty i.e. date of election to date of counting.
4	2018	The respondent herein preferred Execution Application No. 56 of 2018 before the learned Civil Court, Gandhidham.
5	17.07.2018	The learned Civil Court, Gandhidham issued the notice in Execution Application No. 56 of 2018 and same was received by the applicants herein on 07.07.2018.
6	03/08/18	The concerned office had applied for certified copy of the judgement and decree dated 09.05.2017.
7	18.12.2018	The concerned office had received the certified copy of the judgement and decree dated 09.05.2017
8	03/11/18	The Mamlatdar office, Gandhidham had prepared proposal and submitted before the District Collector, Gandhidham.
9	27.11.2018	Proposal dated 03.11.2018 prepared by the office of the Mamlatdar, Gandhidham received y the office of the District Collector, Gandhidham.
10	28.11.2018	The office of the Mamlatdar, Gandhidham sought toe opinion from the District Government Pleader, Gandhidham.
11	30.11.2018	The learned District Government Pleader, Gandhidham gave opinion to challenge impugned judgement and decree dated 09.05.2017./

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

C/CA/3012/2019 ORDER

¶23

12	01/12/18	The Mamlatdar Office, Gandhidham received the opinion of the District Government Pleader dated 30.11.2018.
13	24.12.2018	The Mamlatdar Office, Gandhidham had prepared proposal and had submitted to the District Collector, Anjar.
14	19.03.2019	Recommendations of the appropriate authority, ti has been decided to have concurrence of the revenue department and legal department.
15	01/05/19	The secretary Legal Department granted approval and directed to the District Collector, to file Second Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court gujarat.
16	01/05/19	The office of the Government Pleader Gujarat High Court was received the papers without certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.05.2017.
17	03/05/18	The Government Pleader Office, Gujarat High Court had convey to the concerned office to supply the certified copy of the impugned judgement and decree and other relevant documents/papers.
18	16.07.2019	Papers were given to the office of the Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court. Thereafter, the case papers were handed over to the concerned Assistant Government Pleader, for drafting.
19	03/08/19	The proposed draft was submitted for approval.

¶24

As would appear the official correspondence and the election duty assigned to the officers caused the delay. Only submission by the learned counsel for the opponent opposing this application is that the assembly election was held in the year 2018 and the officers could not have been in the election duty since one and half year of the so called appointment as such. This submission is countered by the learned

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

C/CA/3012/2019 ORDER

¶27

Assistant Government Pleader by submitting that assembly elections were infact held on 09.12.2017 and 14.12.2017 and the result were declared on 18.12.2017.

¶28

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the substantial question of law which may arise as indicated above, which would go to the root of the matter, the case for condonaiton of delay is made out Accordingly application is granted. Delay is condoned. Rule is made absolute.

¶29

(G.R.UDHWANI, J)

¶30

niru*

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Mamlatdar v. Kamal U Amarnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamlatdar v. Kamal U Amarnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umiya Aashish Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs Harman Shankar Tadvi

Umiya Aashish Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs Harman Shankar Tadvi

Shree Gurukrupa Industrial Cooperative Service Society Vs Jashuben Ambubhai D/O of Bhikhabhai Chitabhai

Ambubhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs Mahmmadsalim Jan Mahmmad Dawavala

Thakorebhai Bhagwanbhai Vs Vijayaben Daughter of Ishwarbhai Jethabhai and Wife of Ramubhai Keshavbhai

Ajay Hosilaprasad Mishra (Chairman) through Self and Its Members Vs Ai Shri Khodiyar Construction Company and Shri I Khodiyar Corporation