NANJIBHAI VITTHALBHAI RATHOD (KUMBHAR) Vs. NANUBHAI DEVJIBHAI GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.11.2012, passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar, Camp at Mahuva, in Misc. Civil Application No.34/2012, whereby, the said application for condonation of delay, has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the relevant factual background of the case, as emerging from the petition, is that the petitioner had preferred a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.103/1995, before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Mahuva, for declaration and permanent injunction, on 31.07.1995. After fullfledged trial and hearing on merits, the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 03.01.2003. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner chose to make representations to various authorities such as the Collector, Gandhinagar, and others. He also approached the Government Secretariat. In the process, there occurred a delay of 9 years, 2 months and 3 days, before the petitioner finally decided to file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, that has been rejected by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) MR .Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the petitioner is a poor man and is not conversant with law. After the dismissal of the suit, he was bonafidely making representations to various authorities, which has resulted in the delay. That the District Court ought to have condoned the delay and granted the petitioner an opportunity to challenge the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, instead of rejecting the application of the petitioner on technical grounds. The petitioner was representing before wrong forums under a bonafide belief that his grievances would be redressed, therefore, the Court below ought to have taken a lenient view in order to do substantial justice. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order is unjust and unreasonable. The District Court has not given any cogent reasons for rejecting the application. That the impugned order, being unjust and arbitrary, deserves to be quashed and set aside.