Gujarat High Court
Gadubhai Mogajibhai Pasaya vs Nizamkhan Gamansang Rathod on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3600/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3600 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16357 of 2025
==========================================================
GADUBHAI MOGAJIBHAI PASAYA
Versus
NIZAMKHAN GAMANSANG RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RIYAZ R PARMAR(11846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable forthwith.
2. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.3-insurance company.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant is a poor person and he could not arrange the fund for preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. He further submitted that in managing the fund for preferring the appeal, the applicant has borrowed the money from his friends and relatives and thereafter, engaged the advocate to file the present appeal. He further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned owing to the Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Sep 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:28:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3600/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined reason stated in the application.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances, the appropriate order may be passed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the applicant is the driver of the vehicle. The ground of poverty has been pressed into service for non-filing of the appeal in time. The poverty of party cannot be a hindrance in a way of the party to have the recourse of the legal proceedings. Having regard to the ground of poverty, in my considered view, is sufficient cause to condone the delay. At this Juncture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of the 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 Supreme 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 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 Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Sep 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:28:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3600/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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."
7. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra), the present application is deserved to be allowed and accordingly, the delay is condoned. No order as to costs.
8. Registry is directed to show the name of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel in the First Appeal and Civil Application.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Sat Sep 20 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 22:28:41 IST 2025