In a recent Gujarat High Court ruling, the case of Applicants vs. Original Defendants sheds light on the importance of upholding justice despite procedural hurdles. The applicants sought condonation of a 372-day delay in filing their Civil Revision Application following the rejection under Order 7 Rule 11. Through diligent legal representation by Mr. Unwala, the delay was successfully condoned, showcasing the resilience in seeking justice. This landmark judgment emphasizes the crucial role of legal advocates in ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.
Facts
- The application seeking condonation of delay was rejected by the Division Bench of the Court.
- The rejection was based on the lack of an accompanying application for condonation of delay.
- This decision is referenced in paragraph 8 of the order dated 03.02.2011.
Arguments
- The applicants seek condonation of delay of 372 days in filing the Civil Revision Application.
- The delay was caused in challenging the impugned order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The applicants were not informed about the impugned order by their advocate until July 2023.
- Due to financial constraints and lack of knowledge, the applicants met multiple advocates before filing the present application.
- The advocate for the applicants was not present in the proceedings on 19.04.2022 when the application under Order 7 Rule 11 was rejected.
- Mr. Unwala, learned Senior Counsel, argues for condoning the delay of 372 days in the filing of the Civil Revision Application.
- The learned advocate representing the respondent parties did not contest the submission made by Mr. Unwala, the learned Senior Counsel.
- It was noted that on 31.03.2022, the advocate for the original defendants was not present during the proceedings, and no opportunity of hearing was provided.
- The impugned order was passed on 19.04.2022 rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11.
- The application filed by the present applicants has been allowed due to the mentioned reasons.
- The delay of 372 days in filing the Civil Revision Application has been condoned.
- The rule has been made absolute to the extent mentioned in the judgment.
Analysis
- Rule is not intended to be fatal for the appellant if the memorandum is not accompanied by an application at first instance
- The Rule is not unremediably or irredeemably fatal against the appellant in such a situation
- Substantial justice cannot be compromised due to inaction of the advocate.
- The responsibility of the advocate is crucial in ensuring justice is served.
- The court emphasizes the importance of upholding justice despite any negligence on the part of the lawyer.
Decision
- The defect is curable if the required application is filed subsequently
- The appeal can be treated as presented in accordance with Rule 3-A of Order 41 of the Code
- Relevant paragraphs in the judgment are 10, 11, and 19
Case Title: LH OF RAMANBHAI SOMESHAR MEHTA Vs. JITENDRAKUMAR JAYANTILAL MEHTA
Case Number: R/CA/189/2024
