Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Rekhaben Girishbhai Patel on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6031/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6031 of
2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3457 of 2012
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
REKHABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocates for the parties.
Considering the averments made in the application and submissions made at the bar and also considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein, 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 Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6031/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful 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.
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 con-
doned 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 Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/6031/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined 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."
This application for condonation is allowed. The delay caused in filing the first appeal is condoned. Registry to register the First Appeal and place for hearing.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Mon Aug 11 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 11 22:47:19 IST 2025