Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
The Limitation Act, 1963

User Queries
Gujarat High Court
Jitendra vs Ahmedabad on 3 July, 2008
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi

CA/7205/2008 6/ 6 ORDER

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL

APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 7205 of 2008

=================================================

JITENDRA

LAND CORPORATION P.O.A.HOLDER B M PATEL - Petitioner(s)

Versus

AHMEDABAD

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s)

================================================= Appearance

:

PARTY-IN-PERSON for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 -

3.

=================================================

CORAM

:

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI

Date

: 03/07/2008

ORAL

ORDER

What

is notified before the Court is Civil Application No.7205 of 2008 in Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.1788 of 2008. This Civil Application No.7205 of 2008 is an application seeking condonation of delay caused in filing Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.1788 of 2008. Party in Person, one Mr.B.M. Patel, describing himself to be a Power of Attorney Holder of Jitendra Land Corporation is before this Court. The application as it stands is in utter disorder. In fact, no head or tail can be made out from the application, which can be seen from the memo of application. The first para of the application reads as under:

ýSI Mr.B.M. Patel

Original applicant request to Honerable Court. I was ill during the period of hearing. I was suffering from mental tension during the year 2007 the month of May to December. I attached certificate here Annexure (1).ýý

On

the last occasion, viz. 27th June 2008 this Court adjourned the matter so as to enable the party in person to place necessary material with necessary averments in the application. The matter is placed before the Court with the office note that,

ýSIn pursuance to the Hon'ble Court's order dt.27/06/2008 the party in person was required to carry out amendment in the above Civil Application.

However, the party in person has not carried out amendment in the above matter till today, i.e. 02/07/2008.

This is therefore, submitted to the Hon'ble Court.ýý

2. Today,

when the matter is called out, party in person, Mr.B.M. Patel presented almost the same retyped application and requested in a commanding tone that the matter be restored and then he be heard in the main matter. Only for ready perusal the first para of the amendment is reproduced hereunder:

ýSMr.B.B. Patel

original applicant request to Hon'ble court. I was ill during the period of hearing. I was suffering from mental tension during the year 2007 the month of May to December. I was comm mental position not to thing, see and observe.

I also say that this is serious cause. So far concern for interest of justice. Please delay condon my MCA 1149 of 2007 and here me. Reason are true.ýý

3. The

amendment then proceeds to mention the facts which have no coherence and it is difficult to make out any specific submission from the same. Para 1 reads as under:

ýS1. Medical ground human being mercy and mankind. In comma position not to able present and argue or not appoint any lawer.

2. This matter is

public interest and not heard to us in main matter. This matter is for poor people house.

3. xxx xxx

4. Jitendra land

Corporation is the private treaty of Supreme Court and here the mater of avoid the order of Supreme Court. Supreme Court appointed him and made agreement by the way of court receiver.

5. Now I am fit and ready for argument in the above matter. Section 17 of the Limitation Act. When there is froud no question for limit.

6. Private treaty is a agreement holder of court as well as helper of Govt. and public so far concern this matter is public litigation. So far the interest of public and interest of Supreme Court please grant delay condon.ýý

It

is not with a view to comment upon the contents of the application but to show that it was impossible for the Court to appreciate anything of the submissions made by the party in person. The prayer clause is also reproduced hereunder:

ýSPRAY

Your Lordship for the interest of justice pass order as under:

1. Medical ground I was ill & suffering from mental tension and bed rest position. Mental Coma position. Not to thing ý see & observe and take decetation.

2. This is public

litigation we are working as private treaty for Supreme Court. Supreme Court say that ýShow ever we affirm that we submit the scheme by the help of court receiver sand private treatyýý and in the favour of lawer people.

3. The agreement made with Jitendra Land Corporation and Supreme Court representative R.L. Dave Court Receiver. Jitendra is not compitent authority after the business convert in Trust Deed.

4. Please grant the delay condon period and restore the M.C.A. 1149/07.ýý

4. On

perusal it is found that Special Civil Application No.14 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court (Coram: Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) by judgement and order dated 9th April 2007. The operative part of the order reads as under:

ýS4. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, the present petition is thoroughly misconceived and is filed with an oblique motive. It is only with a view to see that, if development activities are obstructed, the Corporation might be compelled to agree to pay something more to the present petitioner. The said attitude on the part of the law abiding citizen is required to be deprecated and it is so deprecated.

5. Having found the petition ill-designed, ill-motivated, same is dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only).ýý

5. After

the said matter was dismissed by judgement dated 9th April 2007, the record shows that a review application was filed on 20th April 2007. The said application was dismissed for non removal of office objections as on 3rd October 2007. This Court (Coram: Anant S. Dave, J.) granted time to remove office objections on or before 25th October 2007, failing which the matter was liable to be dismissed for non removal of office objections.

6. As

the office objections were not removed, the matter stood dismissed for non prosecution. Thereafter, a Misc. Civil Application was filed for restoration of MCA (Stamp) No.1149 of 2007 (for review) on 9th April 2008. It will not be out of place to mention the prayer clause of that MCA which was filed on 9th April 2008, which reads:

ýSI also say that

this is serious cause. So far concern for interest of justice. Please delay condon my MCA 1149 of 2007 and here me. Reason are true.ýý

ýS1. Medical ground human being mercy and mankind. In comma position not to able present and argue or not appoint any lawer.

2. This matter is

public interest and not heard to us in main matter. .. ..ýý

7. It

is thereafter that Civil Application No.6101 of 2008 was filed in Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.1355 of 2008 on 12th April 2008. It is thereafter that the present MCA is filed for restoration and there being delay a Civil Application is filed seeking condonation of the same.

8. Not

only that no ground is made out for condonation of delay, even after perusal of the papers, it is found that the order passed by this Court on 9th April 2007 does not warrant any review. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Only because the party in person is appearing, the Court restrains itself from awarding any cost in the matter.

(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.)

karim