1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Gujarat Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Misc. Civil Application No. 240 of 2008 dated 22.09.2011 whereby, the said application was rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitionerSociety had filed a suit being Lavad Suit No. 297 of 2005 against the respondents herein before the Board of Nominee, Ahmedabad with the prayer to restrain the respondents herein from transferring the suit property to a third party and also to restrain them from carrying out any illegal construction over the suit property. Along with the suit, the petitioner had also filed Application Exhibit6 for interim injunction. However, the Board of Nominee rejected the Exhibit6 application vide order dated 02.07.2005.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had filed Revision Application No. 220 of 2005 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the Revision Application by order dated 07.04.2006. Since the respondents herein had started to carry out construction over the suit property, the petitioner had preferred S.C.A. No.12517 of 2007 before this Court. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2007 whereby, a direction was issued to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for modification of the order passed in Revision Application No.220 of 2005.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No.235 of 2007 before the Tribunal for modification of its earlier order. Pending disposal of the said application, the Board of Nominee dismissed Lavad Suit No. 297 of 2005 on the ground of nonprosecution vide order dated 04.12.2007. In view of the said order, the Tribunal rejected the application for review, vide order dated 17.01.2008, on the ground of having become infructuous. The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No. 16 of 2008 for restoration of the Lavad Suit, which was allowed, vide order dated 22.08.2008.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No.
240 of 2008 for condoning the delay caused in filing the review application. However, the said application came to be rejected by impugned order. Hence, this petition.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 S.C. 1353, the Apex Court has held that in matters pertaining to delay, Courts should take a lenient view. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the principle laid down in the above decision, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter by condoning the delay and thereafter, should have proceeded with the hearing of the review application on merits.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.09.2011 is quashed and set aside and the delay caused in filing the review application is condoned. The Tribunal is directed to register the review application preferred by the petitioner and thereafter, to hear and dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*