Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar And 3 ORS v. Chandrashekhar Hirjibhai Thakker And 4 ORS
by LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN Date: 2024.02.22 10:13:59 +0530 LAXMIKANT GOPAL CHANDAN 1 (401&402) IAs-581.24&585.24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.581 OF 2024 IN APPEAL (L) NO.28311 OF 2023 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3890 OF 2022 IN SUIT NO.2666 OF 1992 Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar & ors.
: Applicants.
In the matter between Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar : Appellants/ and others Org. Plaintiffs Vs.
Dr. Chandrashekhar Hirjibhai : Respondents.
Thakker and others.
: Org. Defendants.
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.585 OF 2024 IN APPEAL (L) NO.28214 OF 2023 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.30710 OF 2021 IN SUIT NO.2666 OF 1992 Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar & ors.
: Applicants.
In the matter between Vimaldev Hirjibhai Thakkar : Appellants/ and others Org. Plaintiffs
2 (401&402) IAs-581.24&585.24.doc Vs.
Dr. Chandrashekhar Hirjibhai : Respondents.
Thakker and others.
: Org. Defendants.
----- Mr. Yatin Shah a/w Mr. Vipul Makwana for the Applicants/Appellants in both matters.
Ms. Khushboo Rupani i/by HSA for Respondent No.1 in both matters.
Mr. Nakul Jain a/w Mr. Harsh Behany, Ms. Saloni Manjrekar and Ms. Prachi Sanghvi i/by HN Legal for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in both matters.
----- CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :
1.
Both these Interim Applications seek condonation of delay of a period of 13 days in filing the captioned Appeals. 2.
Ms. Rupani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, have opposed the Interim Applications for condonation of delay on the ground that no sufficient reason/cause has been set out in the said Applications.
3 (401&402) IAs-581.24&585.24.doc 3.
We have perused the Applications and find that the delay is of only 13 days and not inordinate in nature. The Applicants have set out that the delay arose on account of the fact that Applicant No.1 was unwell. Given the totality of circumstances, we find that the interest of justice would warrant that the delay be condoned and Appeals be heard on merits. 4.
Both the Interim Applications are allowed. Delay in filing the captioned Appeals stand condoned.
5.
Interim Applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)