Gujarat High Court
Karan Karsandas Kotak (Thacker) vs Kantilal Premji Bhudiya on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3892/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3892 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22392 of 2025
==========================================================
KARAN KARSANDAS KOTAK (THACKER)
Versus
KANTILAL PREMJI BHUDIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 2802 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.08.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kachchh at Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 2005.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a minor at the time of accident. He further submitted that the parents of the applicant could not contact the lawyer due to the lockdown prevailing across the country due to Covid-19 pandemic. He further submitted that thereafter, the well-wishers of Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:18:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3892/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined the applicant came from Mumbai and had some discussions with the advocate of learned Trial Court, who opined to prefer an appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award. Thereafter, the parents of the applicant approached the learned advocate for preferring the appeal. He further submitted that the period of Covid-19 pandemic be excluded from the period of limitation. He further submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor malafide, but has occasioned owing to the reasons mentioned in detail at para nos. 4 to 8 of the instant application. He further submitted that the applicant shall not claim any interest on the enhancement amount of compensation for the period of delay, if the appeal for enhancement is allowed.
4. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the entire country was paralyzed and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 23.03.2020 passed in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil Application No.3/2020), has excluded that period for the purpose of filing the cases. Further, having regard to fact that the applicant was a minor at the time of the accident, 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 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:-
Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:18:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3892/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
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 and is expected to do so.
6. Thus, having considered the ground 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, subject to the condition Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:18:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3892/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined that the claimant shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced amount for the entire delayed period, in case the appeal for enhancement is allowed.
7. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN/HARSHIT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:18:07 IST 2025