Gujarat High Court
Bhavikbhai Rasiklal Parmar vs Vinaben Bhavikbhai Parmar on 14 October, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4427/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4427 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 13815 of 2025
==========================================================
BHAVIKBHAI RASIKLAL PARMAR
Versus
VINABEN BHAVIKBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY L PANDAV(3660) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. PRAGATI PAHWA FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. By this application, the applicant, has prayed for condoning the delay of 139 days caused in preferring the captioned First Appeal.
2. Mr. Ajay L. Pandav, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the judgment was rendered on 30.09.2024 and immediately, within a span of less than a week, the applicant applied for the certified copy on 09.10.2024 and was ready for delivery on the same day. Immediately, the applicant approached the lawyer, who had taken the papers and required the applicant to come after some days, as he was to study the papers. It is further submitted that the advocate was approached again; however, he could not give the opinion, considering his busy schedule. It is further submitted that in the interregnum, the respondent-wife offered a proposal showing her Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:53:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4427/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined willingness to give divorce. Also, application was filed seeking maintenance in the year-2024 as well as execution proceedings, which the applicant has been opposing. It is submitted that the applicant- husband, was involved with various legal proceedings and hence, steps could not be taken in time. Therefore, the appeal could be filed only with the delay of 139 days. It is urged that the delay is bona fide and may be condoned.
3. Ms. Pragati Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, has opposed the application on the ground that the explanation is insufficient, as merely the dates have been mentioned and the events which took place; however, the proceedings and the events, could not have come in the way of the applicant in filing the captioned appeal. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 for the proposition that the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd reported in 1962 AIR SC 361 for the proposition that while construing Section 5 of the Limitation Act, inter alia, if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown, discretion is given to the Court to condone the delay and admit the appeal. The discretion has been deliberately conferred on the Court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice. It is, therefore, submitted that in absence of any sufficient explanation offered, the delay, may not be condoned.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:53:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4427/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. The applicant has made averments to the effect that the judgment and decree was passed on 30.09.2024 and immediately on 09.10.2024, the applicant applied for the certified copy, which was ready for delivery on 09.10.2024. According to the applicant, the advocate was approached, who, after receiving the papers required the applicant to come after some days. Once again, the advocate was approached; however, owing to his busy schedule, he could not give his opinion. The averments in the application, further proceed to the effect that there was an offer by the wife regarding the divorce, rather a proposal was sent that she is ready and willing to take the divorce by consent. The averments further suggest that there are proceedings pending between the parties namely maintenance, execution etc. The averments made in the application, have remained uncontroverted.
6. Considering the explanation offered, this Court, is of the opinion that the applicant has never exhibited the attitude of indolent litigant. In fact, the applicant has remained vigilant all throughout, inasmuch as, immediately, after the judgment was rendered on 30.09.2024, the certified copy was applied. It is not in dispute that in past, the proceedings regarding the maintenance and domestic violence, were initiated against the applicant. It is true that the same were disposed of in the year-2018; however, there is no denial to the fact that in the year-2024, another application, was filed seeking maintenance, wherein, the proceedings have reached to the higher forum. Besides, execution application, was filed by the wife which also engaged the applicant. Therefore, to say that the reasons are insufficient to explain the delay, would not be in the right earnest.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:53:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4427/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
7. The Apex Court, has time and again, held that every day's delay must be explained, does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine has to be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner. It is established principle that 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. It is pertinent to note that the litigant, would not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, the litigant runs a serious risk.
8. In the case on hand, it is nobody's case that the applicant, was indolent and not vigilant or has not taken any steps. The explanation offered, is just and reasonable, and deserves to be accepted. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the delay is sufficiently explained and deserves to be condoned. Considering the explanation offered, the judgments in the case of Basawaraj (supra) as well as Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal (supra), would not be of any help to the respondents.
9. In view of the above, the Civil Application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/SFS/14/10 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Oct 15 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 01:53:56 IST 2025