LAWS(GJH)-2004-8-64

HIRALAL GOPALDAS THAKKER Vs. KANTILAL NATHALAL

Decided On August 13, 2004
HIRALAL GOPALDAS THAKKER Appellant
V/S
KANTILAL NATHALAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, original judgement creditor, has approached this Court by this Appeal From Order being aggrieved of two orders passed by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. One of these two orders is, Order dated 19th January, 1999 passed on Exh.1 and the Office Submissions made on 16th January, 1999 in Darkhast No.145 of 1996 and the other order is dated 15th October, 1999, which is passed below Exh.35 in the same Darkhast.

(2.) This Appeal From Order was filed beyond the period of limitation with Civil Application No.6070 of 2000 for condonation of delay, which was condoned by order dated 3rd September, 2001. Mr.M.S.Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for some of the respondents, submitted that, the appellant has laid the foundation of the appeal on misrepresentation, right from the beginning. In the Civil Application for condonation of delay, in paragraph-2, though Order dated 19th January, 1999 is mentioned, delay is explained by keeping the second order i.e. Order dated 15th October, 1999 in focus. Prima facie, it may appear to be a case of an inadvertent lapse on the part of the appellant and the learned Advocate, but then, on a little close scrutiny, it becomes clear that this is a case of willful misrepresentation.

(3.) Darkhast No.145 of 1996 is filed on 6th March, 1996 by the appellant-judgement creditor for enforcing the decree drawn on 7th March, 1986, that is, only after a decade. In response to a query as to why `Darkhast' was filed after such a long time, the learned Advocate for the appellant replied that the period prescribed for filing `Darkhast' is 12 years and, therefore, it is not necessary to mention the reason before the Court. Not only that, the learned Advocate asserted that no note of the `absence of the reasons' be taken.