Gujarat High Court
Rajubhai Keshabhai Patani vs Amrutbhai Patel on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/686/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 686 of 2022
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30244 of 2021
================================================================
RAJUBHAI KESHABHAI PATANI
Versus
AMRUTBHAI PATEL
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/04/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, who states that
a delay of 11 days has occurred in filing of the present
First Appeal. It is submitted that the applicant had
approached the Advocate to seek opinion with regard to
the matter where the learned Commissioner under the
Workman Compensation Act had rejected the amendment
Application and also the Main Application on 29.01.2021
and thereafter, on having received the certified copies of
the order and under legal advice, the Appeal has been
filed. It is further stated that the applicant hails from a
tribal area and there are few avenues for livelihood.
2. 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 :-
C/CA/686/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2022
"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 meaning- ful manner which subserves 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 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
C/CA/686/2022 ORDER DATED: 22/04/2022
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."
3. It is unfortunate to note that people from tribal areas are
not in position to seek timely legal advise because of
their living conditions.
4. Considering the submissions advanced and the principle
laid down in the above referred judgment, this
application is allowed. The delay of 11 days that has
occurred in filing of the present Appeal is condoned.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
