(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1. By filing instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act' for short), the applicants have prayed to condone delay of 256 days caused in filing the above stamp-numbered First Appeal, which is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.4.2006 rendered by the M.A.C. Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in MACP No.796 of 2000, on the grounds stated in the application.
2. Reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed in time are detailed in paras 2 and 3 of the application. It is pleaded that there was sufficient cause on the part of the applicants for not filing the appeal in time. It is therefore prayed to condone the delay.
3. We have considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Ami Patel, learned advocate for Mr. JV Japee, learned advocate for the applicants, Nishith P Thakkar, learned advocate for opponent No.2 and Mr. Shashikant S. Gade for opponent No.6. Though served, opponent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 have not appeared and contested the application. We have also considered the celebrated principles governing the discretionary exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act and the reported decisions of the Supreme Court construing Section 5 of the Act liberally.
4. So far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned, it has to be decided having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of (i) State of Bihar & others v. Kamleshwar Prasad Singh & another, AIR 2000 SC 2306 (paras 11 to 14 of the reported judgment), (ii) N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, Judgment Today, 1998 (6) SC 242, (iii) State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & others, AIR 1996 SC 1623, (iv) Spl. Tehsildars, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, AIR 1996 SC 2750, (v) Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited and others v. Union of India and others, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 681, (vi) P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another (1997) 7 SCC 566 and (vii) Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and other relevant decisions on the point.
5. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to judgments to the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out by the applicants for condonation of delay. The record does not indicate that there was any inaction or negligence on the part of the applicants in prosecuting the appeal. The explanation for delay offered by the applicants is not only plausible but acceptable and, therefore, the application deserves to be granted.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and accordingly it is allowed. Delay of 256 days caused in filing the above stamp-numbed First Appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(A.M.
Kapadia, J.) (R.H.
Shukla, J.) ...
(karan)