ORAL ORDER

1. By way of preferring the present applications, applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 331 days caused in preferring the captioned appeals challenging the common judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.50 of 2020 and connected matters.

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant herein had preferred Appeal No.50 of 2020 and connected matters before the Gujarat Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. However, vide common judgment dated 31.01.2025, the said appeals came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. He further submits that on same day itself, one free of cost certified copy of the common judgment dated 31.01.2025 was supplied by the Tribunal to the advocates of the applicant and upon perusal of the said judgment, certain errors apparent on the face of the record have been found and therefore applicant herein had preferred review application before the Tribunal. However, the said review applications also came to be rejected on 29.01.2026 and on the same day, free of cost certified copy of the order dated 29.01.2026 has been supplied to the applicant. Thereafter, the captioned appeals came to be filed.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati submits that in fact there is no delay in preferring the appeal before this Court in view of the fact that the period from institution of the review application till the date of decision of the review application is required to be excluded at the time of computing the period of limitation and if the said period is to be excluded, in that event, there is no delay in preferring the captioned appeal. He, therefore, submits that the applications may be allowed and so-called delay, if any, may be condoned.

4. Learned advocate Mr. C. J. Vin appearing for the respondent No.1 has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the application as well as appeal itself and submitted that the period from the institution of the review application till the decision on it is required to be excluded and therefore, as such, there is no delay in preferring the appeals. He, therefore, submits that applications may be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the averments made in the memo of the applications as well as materials placed on record, applications deserve consideration. Accordingly, applications stand allowed. The delay, if any, occurred in preferring the appeals is condoned.