Gujarat High Court
Arifbhai Kadarbhai Kalva (Died On ... vs Mukeshbhai Dineshbhai Makwana on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4011 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9934 of 2025
==========================================================
ARIFBHAI KADARBHAI KALVA (DIED ON 25-03-2025) & ORS.
Versus
MUKESHBHAI DINESHBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR NIKUL K SONI(5122) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RANCHHOD N JADAV(10318) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the delay of 891 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 17.09.2022 passed in MACP No.1/2019 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He further submitted that owing to the financial hardship, death of applicant no.1, lack of legal awareness and paucity of resources, the appeal could not be preferred within the period of limitation. He further submitted that owing to the poverty, the applicant has also made the effort to secure the legal aid and accordingly approached the legal service authority. He further submitted that that though the 1/3rd of the awarded amount was released in favor of the applicant but in the treatment of applicant no.1, Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:15:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the sufficient amount was spent and therefore, the 1/3rd amount of the compensation which came to be disbursed in favour of the applicant was spent in the treatment of the applicant no.1. He further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned owing to the reasons stated in the application. He further submitted that the applicant undertakes to waive the entire interest for the delayed period on the enhanced amount of compensation, in case, the appeal is allowed.
3. Mr. Nikul K. Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1, submitted that the delay has not been properly explained therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Dakshesh B. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.2, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appropriate order may be passed.
5. Mr. Nagraj Khachar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.3, submitted that considering the period of delay, the appropriate order may be passed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the appeal could not be preferred within the period of limitation owing to the financial hardship, death of applicant no.1 and lack of legal knowledge and resources, in my considered view, constitute a sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is settled preposition of law that the delay of any length can be condoned, if it is properly explained. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:15:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 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 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 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 considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the present application deserves to be allowed subject to the condition that the claimant shall not claim any interest, on the enhanced amount of compensation for the entire Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:15:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined delayed period, in case, the appeal for enhancement is allowed. In view of the above, the present application stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Oct 01 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 01 22:15:08 IST 2025