Gujarat High Court
Jagdishbhai Kalabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/678/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 678 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23523 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 679 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23524 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 682 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23525 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 683 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23526 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 684 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23527 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 685 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23528 of 2021
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI KALABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Tejas P. Satta, learned advocate for the
applicant and Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP for the
respondent-State. As common question of law and fact arises
in the captioned matters, the same has been taken up for
final disposal today.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned AGP
C/CA/678/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022
waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-
State.
3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 546 days which has occurred in
preferring the captioned First Appeals.
4. Mr. Tejas Satta, learned advocate for the applicant
submitted that the claimants initially was not informed about
the judgment, and when in the month of August 2018, the
learned advocate has informed him about the decision of the
Reference Court and thereafter the claimant raised the
grievance against the judgment; thus he was advised to prefer
an appeal. It is stated by the learned advocate for the
applicant that thereafter the claimant had tried to contact his
local lawyer for getting advice for appointing lawyer in the
High Court to represent his case, but, due to summer vacation,
the claimant could not meet the lawyer in the High Court, and
therefore, the claimant states that, owing to monsoon season,
he was engaged in agricultural activities and therefore he
could meet the advocate in the month of November 2019
whereby the advocate of the High Court has asked him to
collect papers from the advocate of the Reference Court and
meet him again. However, because of some personal difficulty
the learned advocate was not available, and it was only in the
month of March 2020, he submitted the relevant papers to the
concerned advocate in the High Court for further process; and
thus prayed to condone the delay of 546 days caused in
preferring the captioned First Appeals.
5. Learned AGP submitted that the delay is required to be
explained and sufficient cause has to be shown to the court;
C/CA/678/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022
thus urged to reject this application.
6. It is unfortunate to state that the claimants could not get
timely legal assistance or legal advice in connection with the
impugned judgment and award so passed by the Reference
Court nor the litigant should suffer owing to the carelessness
of the learned advocate. Further the claimants are
agriculturists and taking into consideration the special
background, the delay is sufficiently explained.
7. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC
1353 it has been observed as under :-
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone
delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act
of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial
justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'.
The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the
legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to
apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves
the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose for the
existence of the institution of Courts. It is common
knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably
liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But
the message does not appear to have percolated down
to all the other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a
liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized
that:-
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
C/CA/678/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022
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.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this
perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the
delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it
was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and not
a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine
of equality before law demands that all litigants,
including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same
treatment and the law is administered in an even
handed manner. There is no warrant for according a
step-motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant
praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience
shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no
one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by
the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the
inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the
note-making, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck
ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand
C/CA/678/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2022
though more difficult to approve. In any event, the
State which represents the collective cause of the
community, does not deserve a litigant non-grata status.
The Courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit
and philosophy of the provision in the course of the
interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So
also the same approach has to be evidenced in its
application to matters at hand with the end in view to
do even handed justice on merits in preference to the
approach which scuttles a decision on merits."
8. Thus, taking into consideration the principle as laid
down in the above referred judgment and when the delay
of 546 days is sufficiently explained, the same is
condoned. The applications are allowed in the aforesaid
terms. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each
of the applications.
(GITA GOPI,J)
A.M.A. SAIYED
