Gujarat High Court
Alibhai Mamadbhai Chavada vs Hinaben Chandrakant @ Chandresh Aboti on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/447/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 447 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34030 of 2024
==========================================================
ALIBHAI MAMADBHAI CHAVADA
Versus
HINABEN CHANDRAKANT @ CHANDRESH ABOTI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RAJAL M PANCHAL(13724) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAY H PATEL(11511) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 737 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhuj at Kutch in M.A.C.P. No. 124 of 2018.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant-original opponent no.2 submitted that the applicant herein had sold the offending vehicle to one Mr. Raysinh Malshi Maheshwari on 30.10.2012, however, could not produce the sale agreement, as he was not having possession of Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:23:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/447/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined the same. Thereafter, considerable time was consumed in procuring the copy of the sale agreement owing to the lock-down prevailing across the country due to Covid-19 pandemic. He further submitted that applicant was also facing financial difficulty, hence, he could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, a delay of 737 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal. He further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor malafide, but has occasioned owing to the reasons mentioned in detail at para no. 3 of the instant application.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Jay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 vehemently submitted that there is no ground to condone the delay. He contended that as per the records of transport authorities, offending vehicle still stands in the name of the present applicant and was registered in the name of the applicant herein when the accident occurred. He further submitted that the delay has not been properly explained, therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the applicant could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation owing to his financial crunch and due to Covid-19 pandemic, which was spread across the country. It is also on record that this Court, vide order dated 15.07.2025 had directed the applicant herein to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- with the learned Tribunal concerned. The said amount has already been deposited with the learned Tribunal and copy of the deposit slip has been placed on record during the course of the hearing.
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:23:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/447/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined
6. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to ground pressed into service, in my considered view, constitutes sufficient ground to condone the delay. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. reported in [AIR 1987 SC 1353], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
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 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:23:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/447/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025 undefined and is expected to do so.
7. Thus, having considered the grounds for delay pressed into service for condoning the delay and having regard to the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. (supra), the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
8. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH/ARUN Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 00:23:50 IST 2025