Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Vinaben Rajeshkumar Solanki

                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/CA/1564/2023                                      ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023

                                                                                          undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1564 of
                               2023
                                In
           F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 30190 of 2023

==========================================================
      ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                          Versus
               VINABEN RAJESHKUMAR SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 10,6,7,8,9
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                Date : 13/10/2023

                                 ORAL ORDER

[1] Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

[2] The present application is moved to condone the delay of 82 days in filing the Misc. Civil Application for review against the judgment and order dated 13.6.2023 passed in R/Special Civil Application no.7625 of 2023 whereby challenge was given to the order dated 19.10.2022 passed below Exh.35 in MACP no.320/2017 by MACT, Anand.

[3] Mr. Mehta stated that on receiving the order Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:43:49 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1564/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023 undefined and after taking legal opinion and on sanction only the present petition could be filed and therefore, delay of 82 days has occurred.

[4] In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has been observed as under:-

"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:-

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1564/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023 undefined

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.

4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.

5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1564/2023 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2023 undefined [5] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the averments made in the application and as the delay is sufficiently explained and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 82 days occurred in filing the application deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.

[6] Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is directed to list Misc. Civil Application for review for hearing today.

(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 16 20:43:49 IST 2023