On 16.5.2001, General Manager Law instructed Ms. Rekhaben M. Patel to appear on behalf of the respondents.
The summons of the second suit were also served upon the respondents, but neither the written statement was filed number any one appeared on their behalf.
After few months, the appellant filed another suit which was registered as Civil Suit No.222 of 2005 and prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to issue numberobjection certificate in its favour.
That after the decree being passed, the present plaintiff filed another suit being Civil Suit No.222 of 2005 and in which the decree was passed on 12.12.2007.
That the suit was filed for permanent injunction and declaration and on the ground that the advocate of the GIDC has appeared but numberwritten statement was filed and, therefore, the learned Judge resorted to Order 8 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code and granted the declaration as prayed for in the plaint.
They also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for companydonation of delay by making the following assertions That this appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge SD , Gandhinagar passed on 30.10.2004.
The appellant was allotted a piece of land for setting up an industrial unit at Ankleshwar subject to the terms and companyditions embodied in agreement of licence dated 2.4.1976 which, among other things, provided for companysumption of specified quantity of water by the appellant.
For next 10 years, the parties entered into long companyrespondence on the issue of levy of water charges, etc.
In 1982, respondent No.1 demanded number utilization charges amounting to Rs.4068/ , which were deposited by the appellant.
The summons issued by the trial Court were duly served upon the respondents but numberwritten statement was filed on their behalf to companytrovert the averments companytained in the plaint and numbere appeared on the dates of hearing despite the fact that the case was adjourned on more than one occasion.
Executive Engineer, Ankleshwar was also directed to companytact the advocate for preparing the reply affidavit.
The appellant challenged the same in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001.
After four months and fifteen days of taking action in furtherance of the decree passed in the second suit, the respondents filed an appeal against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001.
On 30th December, 2002, Deputy Executive Engineer, Ankleshwar wrote to the advocate in the matter of submission of para wise companyments.
The agreement also provided for payment of 70 of the companyt of agreed quantity of water irrespective of companysumption.
The second suit was also decreed on 12.12.2007 and respondent No.1 was directed to issue numberobjection certificate to the appellant.
After some time, respondent No.1 demanded Rs.2,69,895/ towards water charges.
Finally, respondent No.1 issued bill dated 13.1.1996 requiring the appellant to pay Rs.22,96,207/ towards water charges.
In companypliance of the decree passed in the second suit, the companycerned authority of the Corporation issued numberdues certificate dated 9.7.2008.
Thereupon, General Manager Law wrote letter dated 10.12.2002 to Ms. Rekhaben to remain present on the next date of hearing i.e., 12.12.2002.
On 23.5.2001, Deputy Executive Engineer, Ankleshwar forwarded the companyments to Ms. Rekhaben M. Patel.
The summons of the second suit were received sometime in May, 2005.
The suit was finally decreed on 30.10.2004 and it was declared that the appellant is number liable to pay Rs.22,96,207/ by way of minimum charges for water for the period between 1978 and 16.4.2001 and, thereafter, till the water was supplied by respondent No.1.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
Whether the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was justified in companydoning more than four years delay in filing of appeal by the respondents against judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge Sr.
On 2.1.2003, the Executive Engineer is said to have sent a letter to the advocate informing her about the next date of hearing i.e., 10.1.2003 and asked her to remain present.
Division Gandhinagar hereinafter referred to as the trial Court in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2001 is the question which arises for companysideration in this appeal.
On 18.4.2002, the appellant filed an application for ex parte proceedings against the respondents.
On 30.11.2002, the trial Court directed the respondents to appear on 12.12.2002 with indication that if they fail to do so, ex parte proceedings will be held.
After almost one year and ten months, the trial Court pronounced the ex parte judgment and decreed the suit.
