Gujarat High Court
Megabai Narshi Marvada (Harijan) vs Manji Vastabhai Koli on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3164 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 14333 of 2025
==========================================================
MEGABAI NARSHI MARVADA (HARIJAN)
Versus
MANJI VASTABHAI KOLI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 1095 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2022 passed in M.A.C.P.No.281 of 2009.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the impugned judgment and award was passed on 19.01.2022. Thereafter, the learned advocate for the applicant applied for certified copies of the judgment and award on 02.03.2022, which were delivered on 07.03.2022. Subsequently, learned advocate sent a letter dated 17.03.2022 advising the applicant to prefer an appeal; however, the said letter was not received by the applicant. He further submitted that summons were Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:48:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined later on received from the learned Tribunal through its Special Messenger, directing the applicant to remain present on 28.12.2023. On that day, the applicant approached the learned advocate, who apprised him about the letter dated 17.03.2022. Thereafter, the applicant had discussions with another advocate, who also advised him to prefer an appeal. However, the applicant could not do so at that time due to lack of requisite funds for payment of court fees and other expenses involved in filing the appeal. He further submitted that in February 2025, the learned advocate forwarded the case papers to the present advocate, who thereafter filed an appeal before the Registry of this Court on 25.04.2025. He submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor mala fide, but has occurred due to the reasons stated in the application. Learned advocate also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and relying on the ratio laid down therein, submitted that the present application deserves to be allowed.
3. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for parties and having regard to the grounds pressed into service, I am of the considered opinion that the said circumstances constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is a settled proposition of law that delay of any length can be condoned, if it is satisfactorily Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:48:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined explained. In the present case, in my view, the applicant has sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay.
5. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Court has laid down the guiding principles for condonation of delay. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:--
"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.Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:48:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
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 regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353] and having regard to the grounds pressed into service for condonation of delay, in my considered view, the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
7. In view of the above, the present Civil Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 21:48:57 IST 2025