##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/597/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026

0.7771852897211897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 597 of

2022 In R/FIRST APPEAL/1311/2022

With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 of 2022 With

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 of 2022 ================================================================

PRAJAPATI BABUBHAI GOVINDBHAI DECD. THRO HIS L.H & ORS.

Versus SANJAYKUMAR CHIMANLAL PATEL & ORS.

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

Appearance:

A R KADRI(7330) for the Applicant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,2 DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR BHUNESH C RUPERA(3896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

Date : 06/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.R. Kadri appearing for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.Bhunesh C.

Rupera appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This application is for condonation of delay of 1817 days in preferring the First Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.01.2015 passed by learned 6^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit No.301 of 2012, in view of the fact that the

Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 15 11:23:43 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/597/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026

0.7771852897211897

appeal is preferred pursuant to the Order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 14.03.2022 in Civil Application No.

1775 of 2021, which reads as under:

“Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

Having considered the joint ownership of the property in question alongwith the original defendants and considering the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, the

application requires consideration.

The application is allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.”

3. It appears that by order dated 13.04.2022, the delay in preferring the First Appeal challenging the decision of the learned trial Court was ordered to be condoned; however, a Misc. Application for Recall No. 1 of 2022 was filed by opponent No. 1 on the ground that he had already filed Vakalatnama, but his name was not shown in the cause list and, therefore, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the application was allowed by the Court. Considering such submission, the Order dated 13.04.2022 was recalled, and since then this application is pending

for adjudication

4. Learned advocate Mr. A.R. Kadri for the applicant

Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 15 11:23:43 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/597/2022 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026

0.7771852897211897

submitted that there cannot be any delay of 1817 days because, while considering the application for leave to prefer the appeal filed by the applicants, the delay was allowed by the Order dated 14.03.2022, and therefore, the applicants were entitled to file the appeal within 90 days from the date of granting the leave, and the appeal is preferred on 18.04.2022, and therefore, there is no delay in preferring the appeal by the applicant from the date of grant of leave. It was, therefore, submitted that the delay is not required to be condoned as there is no

delay in filing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Bhunesh C. Rupera appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that the delay has occurred from the date of the Judgment and Decree and the applicants were supposed to be vigilant to seek the leave of the Court to challenge the impugned Judgment and Decree, which was admittedly filed in the year 2021, that is after more than 6 years from the date of the impugned Judgment and Decree passed in the year

2015.

6. It was further submitted that th