Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Rasiklal Shah vs Parimal Shantilal Patel on 21 July, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/1215/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1215 of 2022
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 10995 of 2020
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI RASIKLAL SHAH
Versus
PARIMAL SHANTILAL PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the
applicant.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 154 days which
has occurred in preferring the captioned First Appeal.
3. Considering the submissions made and in view of
the averments made in para 2 to 7 of the application and
also considering the fact that the delay has been
sufficiently explained; this Court is of the opinion that the
delay caused in preferring the First Appeal deserves to be
condoned.
4. 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/1215/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022
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 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 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
C/CA/1215/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022
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 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
C/CA/1215/2022 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2022
view to do even handed justice on merits in
preference to the approach which scuttles a
decision on merits."
5. Thus, taking into consideration the principle as
laid down in the above referred judgment and when
the delay of 154 days is sufficiently explained, the
same is condoned. This application stands disposed
of accordingly with no order as to costs.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Vahid
