Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Dhuliben Wd/O Vinubhai on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/3125/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3125 of 2019
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21001 of 2019
==========================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
DHULIBEN WD/O VINUBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMI N BHATT(3372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RAVI B SHAH(5346) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 11/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 88 days caused in filing the First
Appeal.
2. It is stated in the application that the judgment
and order was passed on 05.01.2019 and certified copy
was made on 11.04.2019. It is stated that the certified
copy was ready on 11.04.2019, which was delivered on
11.04.2019 and therefore the delay of 88 days caused in
filing the same.
3. 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
C/CA/3125/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022
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 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.
C/CA/3125/2019 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2022
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."
4. Considering the averments made in the
application and as the delay is sufficiently explained and
in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
delay of 88 days caused in filing the First Appeal is
condoned. The application is allowed. Rule is made
absolute.
(GITA GOPI, J.)
Pankaj
