HIMMATBHAI ARJANBHAI SAVANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application, the applicant - original complainant has preferred the application for condonation of delay of 1014 days in preferring leave to appeal application against order dtd. 6/4/2017 passed by learned 11 th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Surat, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint for default on account of long absence of the original complainant in Criminal Inquiry No.100025 of 2004.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Qureshi appearing for the applicant - original complainant would submit that the respondents - accused persons created forged agreement, kabja receipt knowing that said documents are bogus and concocted and tried to demolish the property bearing revenue survey No.529/A/1 and 529/A/2 paiki admeasuring 2324.90 sq mtr. According to the learned advocate, the original complainant was not feeling well since the year 2017 and prior to it, he was suffering from various ailments (i) chronic calcific pancreatitis ethanol related (ii) Portal vein, SMV and splenic vein thrombosis (iii) Portal biliopathy with duodenal varix (iv) Underwent biliary and pancreatic sphincterotomy with pancreatic stenting (v) Dyslipidemia and (vi) Hypertension. On account of aforesaid ailments, the original complainant was taking follow up treatment and he being aged person and further on account of Covid - 19 situation, he could not contact advocate and therefore, could not challenge the impugned order as it was beyond his control to file the proceedings and therefore, delay of 1014 days caused in preferring leave to appeal application may be condoned.

(3.) We have examined the averments made in the application and further medical papers annexed at Annexure A, which runs into 09 pages. It may be true that the applicant - original complainant had medical issues with respect to case of chronic calcific pancreatitis since 1992. For such ailment, he did take treatment and for that he was continuously taking follow up treatment. From the medical papers, it appears that it was not the situation where the applicant - original complainant was continuously hospitalized after dismissal of criminal inquiry initiated by him. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is quite clear that the applicant has lodged the complaint in the year 2004 and he remained continuously absent before the learned trial Court and despite there was no obligation on the part of the Court to issue notice to the complainant, the original complainant was served with notice, even then, he did not appear before the Court and thus, on account of continuous long absence, the Court has dismissed the aforesaid complaint.