LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-404

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHARTIBEN PREMCHAND GUPTA

Decided On June 12, 2023
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Bhartiben Premchand Gupta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the legality, propriety and correctness of order dtd. 30/11/2021 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Mehsana in Civil Miscellaneous Application (Delay Condone) No.188 of 2017, whereby the application for condonation of delay of 10 months and 09 days caused in preferring the Civil Appeal, challenging the judgement and order passed by the learned 7 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Suit No.306 of 1997, has been rejected.

(2.) Ms. Archana Amin, learned counsel appearing for and behalf of the petitioner Union of India through General Manager, Western Railway has submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the facts that respondents plaintiffs have encroached upon the land which is of the ownership of the Western Railway and have illegally constructed commercial building upon the disputed land. Despite all these facts, the learned trial Court, vide its judgement and order dtd. 31/12/2016 allowed the suit and granted permanent injunction and declaration as prayed for. In this context, she submitted that the Legislature has conferred the powers on the Court to condone the delay by enacting Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963, in order to enable the Court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matters on merits. The delay, in the present case, cannot be termed as inordinate delay and, therefore, the District Court, ought not to have rejected the application on highly technical grounds. The District Court, committed a grave error by not considering the fact that the delay has occurred due to following departmental procedure only and as such there were no dilatory tactics on the part of the department. Thus, the grounds mentioned in the application are sufficient for condoning the delay.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel Ms. Archana Amin, submitted that the District Court committed an patent illegality, while passing the order, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.