PRADIPBHAI B PATE Vs. PARESHBHAI CHHAGANBHAI THUMMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Manan A. Shah, learned advocate appears and waives service of rule for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) WITHOUT going into the other controversy raised in the present petition, Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the lower appellate court while dealing with Misc. Application No.234 of 2010, which was for condonation of delay of 138 days in filing the appeal, has not considered the sufficient cause which the petitioner could show. It was further submitted that thus, the lower appellate court has committed an error apparent on face of record and, therefore, the order passed in Misc. Application No.234 of 2010 dated 28.02.2010 by 3

(3.) TAKING into consideration the fact that there was delay of 138 days in preferring the appeal and the petitioner has averred in his application that the concerned person i.e. Shri Pradipbhai B. Patel was bedridden and because of which, the appeal could not be preferred within the statutory time limit. This Court agrees with the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that no leniency can be shown for any negligence or lethargy if shown by the petitioner in preferring the appeal within time. However, as the facts reveal that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause to the lower appellate court still, however, a technical view was taken. As the further reasons are not invited by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent, suffice it to say that the lower appellate court has committed an error in dismissing the said application for condonation of delay still, however, the delay being of 138 days even while taking lenient view, the petitioner should be saddled with cost.