Gujarat High Court
Pareshbhai Yogeshbhai Patel vs Abdulla Khan S/O Sanaulla Khan on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3327/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3327 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 32249 of 2024
==========================================================
PARESHBHAI YOGESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
ABDULLA KHAN S/O SANAULLA KHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the delay of 969 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2021 owing to the reasons that the applicant could not arrange the necessary finance to pay the requisite Court fee and other expenses involved in preferring the appeal. He further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned owing to the reasons of poverty of the applicant. He further submitted that the applicants undertake to waive the interest for the delayed period, on the enhanced amount of compensation, if the appeal for enhancement is allowed.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:26:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3327/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
3. Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 submitted that the delay has not been explained, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
4. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties and having regard to the fact that owing to the poverty of the applicant, the applicant could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. The ground of delay pressed into service, in my considered view, constitutes a sufficient cause to condone the delay. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in AIR (1987) SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for condonation of delay and the same are reproduced hereunder:-
"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 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.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:26:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3327/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
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."
5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mst. Katiji (supra), the present application deserves to be allowed subject to the condition that the claimants shall not be entitled for any interest, on the enhanced amount of compensation for the delayed period, in case, the appeal for enhancement is allowed. In view of the above, the delay is condoned and the present application stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Fri Oct 10 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 13:26:50 IST 2025