Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4844 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26426 of 2024
==========================================================
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RAJVI PATEL(9620) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for praying to condone delay of 1001 days which has taken place in filing of the First Appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Rajvi Patel for the applicant, learned AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and learned advocate Mr. Manthan Bhatt for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.2019 came to be passed by learned 18th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined Civil Suit No.633 of 1998. Thereafter, due to Covid, no steps could be taken by the applicant challenging the impugned judgment and decree. Thereafter, in the year 2022, the present applicant came to know that opponent No.4 - Gujarat Pollution Control Board has filed first appeal No.1494 of 2022 challenging the impugned judgment and decree. The original plaintiff filed execution petition in the year 2020. The advocate concerned convinced applicant that since the appeal is filed by opponent No.4, which will take care of interest of all the defendants as the decree is joint and severed. Resultantly, the applicant remained under a bonafide impression that the appeal which has been filed by opponent No.4 will take care of the interest of present applicant. However, first appeal No.1494 of 2022 was admitted and the rule of admission was issued. On perusal of the impugned order as well as upon oral advice of the advocate concerned, the applicant found it necessary to prefer an appeal and, therefore, an application for certified copy was made on 1.8.2024. It is contended that the applicant is a state government controlled statutory corporation. There is no intentional delay on the part of the applicant. The explanation which has been assigned in the application is sufficient to condone delay. No other submissions are made except the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined above.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent - plaintiff has mainly relied upon the contentions raised in affidavit in reply. It is further contended that the applicant was aware about passing of the judgment and decree when the notice of execution was served upon the applicant. The explanation that the applicant remained under bonafide impression that since opponent No.4 has preferred the appeal would cover the interest of the applicant is not a bonafide cause for condoning delay. It is further contended that the applicant is having a legal department in the Corporation and such legal department is not expected to remain under an impression that if a co-defendant challenges the impugned judgment and decree, that would cover the interest of the present applicant. No other submissions are made except the above.
5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the material placed on record.
6. It appears from the record that the only reason which has been Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined assigned in the application is an impression that the appeal preferred by opponent No.4 herein would cover the interest of the applicant. The explanation sounds unreasonable for the reason that the applicant is a State Government controlled Statutory Corporation having a Legal Department. When the Corporation is having a full-fledged legal department, it is expected that the legal department should function effectively. When in any proceedings order is passed, such order is always placed before the legal department for its scrutiny. The legal department of the Corporation is not expected to remain under a belief that when a co-defendant challenges a decree, it would cover the interest of the Corporation. Such belief is not only misconceived but creates question regarding the functioning of the legal department of the applicant.
7. The law on limitation is that the Court should adopt a lenient and justice oriented view while deciding an application for condonation of delay. Though the length of delay is not the only criteria for deciding an application for condonation of delay, but the reasons and explanation which are pleaded by the litigant for delay is vital criteria.
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
8. In the case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India decided on 5.8.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos.8435-8436 of 2024 by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which has been relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. In paragraph No.20 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the issue of condonation of delay, has laid down a law that while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has to be propounded, will have to be examined and if the cause of delay would fall within the four-corners of `sufficient cause', irrespective of the length of delay, delay deserves to be condoned. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:05:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
10. Reverting back to the present case, what has been transpired from the application is that the decree passed in the Civil Suit is directing all the defendants jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.50/- lacs to the plaintiff with interest at a rate of 6% p.a. The impugned plea has been challenged by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, which runs under the State of Gujarat, the applicant is also controlled by the State of Gujarat. When 2 different establishments controlled by the State of Gujarat are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the justice- oriented view is required to be adopted. To balance an equity, the applicant is saddled with a cost of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for condoning delay.
11. The application is allowed on a condition that the applicant shall deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) before the Principal District Judge, District Court Judges' Library, Vadodara within a period of four weeks from today.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 00:05:43 IST 2025