Gujarat High Court
The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation ... vs Suthar Nathalal Jivram on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/AO/104/2011 IA ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4 of 2017
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 104 of 2011
==========================================================
THE OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
Versus
SUTHAR NATHALAL JIVRAM
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA for the PETITIONER(s) No.
for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
MR. JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
MR JAL S. UNWALLA for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 24/03/2021
IA ORDER
1. The Applicant - Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Has filed this
Application for condonation of delay of 3656 days in preferring the Civil
Application for bringing on record the legal heirs and representatives of
deceased Opponent No.6 - Manilal Gangaramdas Patel.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ajay R. Mehta for the Applicant and
learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the Respondent - State of Gujarat.
Learned Counsel Mr. Jal S. Unwala has not remained present for the
Respondent.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted that despite sufficient time
and opportunity given to the other side the proposed heirs have not come
forward to appear in this matter and the same factum is observed by this court
on 16.9.2019. He has therefore requested this Court to pass appropriate order
to the effect that the main matter may be conducted and decided finally.
4. Having heard the the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the
Applicant, there is no doubt that every case is required to be decided on merits
C/AO/104/2011 IA ORDER
rather than on technicality. Moreover, pursuant to the record, it appears that no
one has appeared for the proposed heirs. Further, the delay is of 3656 days.
Though the delay is huge, but simultaneously, as per catena of judicial
pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, every matter is required to be
decided on merits and such technicality may not come in the way. But the fact
remains that the delay is of 3656 days, which is a very huge delay and
therefore, by imposing exemplary cost, if delay is condoned, the same would
meet the ends of justice. The prime purpose for which Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted so as to enable the Court to do substantial
justice and that is the prime reason why very elastic expression and sufficient
cause is employed therein so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.
5. This Court has considered the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench
reported in 2017 Law Suit (Guj) 1947 in the case of Mafatlal Apparels v.
Akbarbhai Ganibhai Saiyed & Ors. wherein it is observed as under:
"As far as the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dave the same are not
applicable to the facts of the present case since in the reference, the
case of the employees was being represented by Union leader and he
informed the employees to remain present only when called for. They
were never aware about dismissal of the reference and where never
informed that the reference was dismissed for want of prosecution. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajesh Pukhraj Chauhan v.
Sinter Plast Containers and another has held that it is trite that a
litigant is permitted to litigate for his rights by having a decision from
the Court of law on merits, rather than he is ousted on technical ground.
A liberal approach is not out of place."
6. Therefore, the Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly
stands allowed. Delay is condoned. The Applicant to deposit cost of
Rs.15000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) before the Gujarat High Court Legal
Services Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
Rule is made absolute.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
J.N.W
