Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J
Jayesh Talakshibhai Kotak – Appellant
Versus
Bhudarbhai Dwarkadas Patel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of applications for condonation of delay and leave to appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. necessity of impleading pendente lite purchasers in property litigation. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. requirement of sufficient cause for condoning delay. (Para 7) |
| 4. pendente lite purchaser as a necessary party to prevent collusion. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. judicial duty to adjudicate on merit despite ex-parte/default conditions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. preference for substantial justice over rigid procedural limitation constraints. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Reserved On : - 07/04/2026
Pronounced On : 21/04/2026
IA CAV JUDGMENT
1. This common order governs disposal of CA No. 2 of 2013 and CA No.3 of 2013 seeking relief of leave to appeal and condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal.
2. In CA No. 2 of 2013, following relief is prayed:-
“Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application granting the applicants leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order and decree dated 01/07/2009 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.51 of 1996.”
3. In CA No. 3 of 2013, following rel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
