The court emphasized that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal must be valid and sufficient, and the period excluded due to the COVID-19 pandemic may not be available in all cases.

ORDER :

A.J. DESAI, J.

1. By way of the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the original respondents of the writ petition have prayed to extend the period of limitation for challenging an order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.9883 of 1992, by which, the petition filed by the present private respondents came to be allowed.

2. In response to notice issued by this Court, private respondents have appeared through learned advocate Mr.Trilok Patel and he has filed affidavit in reply and oppose grant of relief as prayed for, mainly on the ground that there is huge delay in filing the appeal i.e. around 1392 days.

3.Mr.Jaimin Dave learned advocate for the applicant would firstly submit that though the office has calculated delay of 1392 days in preferring the appeal is, in fact, the period which has been granted for excluding the period for COVID pandemic. In fact, there is a delay of 730 days and therefore, it cannot be said that it is a huge delay.

4. Alternatively, he would submit that there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. He would submit that the Court proceedings were handled by Maganbhai Devjibhai - original respondent no.2.3 who has expired on 24.01.2018. Other family members were not aware about the judgement. He would submit that after the death of Maganbhai, the appellants/applicants came to know about the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge only in the year 2022 when a notice was served to the applicant by the Government Authority about the implementation of the order. He therefore would submit that the application may be allowed.

5. In support of his application, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dhiraj Singh (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES and others v State of Haryana and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 127. By relying upon the said decision, he would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of delay in challenging the decision before the higher forum, pragmatic view is required to be taken. He has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao and others reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195.

6. By relying upon para 12 of the said judgement, he would submit that there are sufficient reasons to extend the period of limitation and to condone the delay in preferring the appeal.

7. On the other side, learned advocate Mr.Trilok Patel has opposed this application. He would submit that the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant for exclusion of the COVID period may not be granted. The challenge is of the year 2016. He would submit that the appellant should have challenged the order and filed the appeal on or before 30.09.2016. Instead of filing the appeal even before the COVID pandemic begun, the application for getting certified copy of the judgement was applied for on 25.07.2022 and thereafter the appeal has been filed.

8. He would further submit that there are numerous appellants and the submission made by learned advocate for the applicant is required to be discarded since one Maganbhai Devjibhai who was allegedly handling the proceedings has passed away on 24.01.2018, whereas, the decision was delivered by the learned Single Judge in September 2016. He therefore would submit that application be rejected.

9. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

10. It is an undisputed fact that the judgement under challenge in this appeal was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 30.09.2016. The prescribed period for filing the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865 is of 30 days. The period which was expired on 30.10.2016 or for those 30 days excluding the period of getting certified copy if the same was applied for within a period of 30 days, which is not the case on hand.

11. When the period has already expired, in our