The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by analogy in proceedings under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to determine the reasonable time for substitution of legal representatives.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. The main writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.22361 of 2006, has been preferred by the original petitioner-Patel Kashibhai Tarshibhai, who has expired on 25.5.2008. Therefore, Civil Application No.1 of 2018 has been preferred so as to bring his heir(s) on record.

3. In the application for bringing the heirs on record, following prayers are made:-

(B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to join the applicants No.1.1 & 1.2 as the legal heirs and representatives of the original petitioner in special civil application no.22361 of 2006;

(C) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone 3709 days delay if any in preferring the said application;”

4. Short facts, leading to filing of the civil application, in applicants own words are that, the original petitioner - Patel Kashibhai Talshibhai had preferred above captioned special civil application challenging the legality and validity of order dated 18/11/9.2006 rendered by the respondent no.2. In revision application no.15/2001, petitioner had also preferred the above mentioned petition praying for restoration of the order dated 5/29.12.2000 rendered by the collector Kheda bearing RTS/RA/71/99 AND 72/99. The applicants had preferred civil application No.11808 of 2016 before this Hon'ble Court wherein this Hon'ble had passed order on 27.3.2017.

4.1 That the original petitioner, Patel Kashibhai Talshibhai expired on 25.5.2008, during pendency of above mentioned petition. The wife of the original petitioner also expired on 31.3.1988. The applicants submit that the original petitioner as well as his wife expired leaving behind no class-1 legal heirs. The applicants submit that the only legal heir is the brother of the original petitioner one Shri Patel Mohanbhai Talshibhai as well as his wife Ramilaben Mohanbhai Patel expired on 26.1.2015 and 4.3.2004 respectively. The applicants submit that the applicants are the only legal heirs of the original petitioner. In light of above facts, the applicants pray that they may be permitted to be joined as legal heirs and representatives of the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.22361 of 2006.

5. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the original petitioner as well as his wife expired on 25.5.2008 and 31.3.1988 respectively and also the brother of the original petitioner Shri Mohanbhai Talshibhai Patel and his wife too, expired on 26.1.2015 and 4.3.2004 respectively. Therefore, the applicants herein may be permitted to be joined as the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner in the writ petition and it is also prayed that the delay of 3709 days caused in late filing the application may also be condoned.

6. Per contra, on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Vikram Thakore for the respondents it is contended that the application is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the applicants herein are not the heirs of the original petitioner, but they are second class heirs and that therefore, they should not be permitted to be joined as legal heirs and representatives of the original petitioner in Special Civil Application No.22361 of 2006. It is also contended that there is inordinate delay in preferring the application and that therefore, the same may be rejected.

7. Ms. Jhala, learned AGP has adopted the arguments made on behalf of Mr. Thakore, learned advocate for the respondents and also reiterated that since there is inordinate delay in bringing the heirs on record, the application may be rejected.

8. In reply to aforesaid submissions by learned counsel for the respondents, learned advocate for the applicants placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Sureshbahi Suvalal Jayswal vs. State of Gujarat [2016(1) GLR 477] wherein it is held that:-

“7. It was however, brought to the notice of the Court that Rule 67 of the Gujarat High Court Rules provides for making of separate application seeking condonation of delay if occurred in