Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunilkumar Rameshchandra Baria vs Ramzani Yakub Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 6780 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6780 Guj
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2022

Gujarat High Court
Sunilkumar Rameshchandra Baria vs Ramzani Yakub Patel on 29 July, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
     C/CA/1287/2022                                   ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1287 of 2022
                                       In
                        F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22235 of 2022

==========================================================
                      SUNILKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA BARIA
                                   Versus
                            RAMZANI YAKUB PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                Date : 29/07/2022

                                   ORAL ORDER

1. The present application has been filed for

condonation of delay of 604 days caused in filing the First

Appeal.

2. It is stated that it is an application by injured

claimant that the delay has occurred because of procuring the

certified copies and also for arranging funds for Court fees

and legal expenses.

3. Learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subbarayudu v.

Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in

2017 (12) SCC 840. It is submitted that the cause for delay

C/CA/1287/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022

should receive liberal construction so as to advance

substantial justice. It is submitted that the applicant is ready

and willing to forego the interest and the consequential

statutory benefits during the delayed period and thus prayed

for liberal consideration of the sufficient cause.

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 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:-

C/CA/1287/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022

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 benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

C/CA/1287/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2022

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."

5. 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 604 days

caused in filing the First Appeal is condoned on the direction

to forego interest for the delayed period. The application is

allowed.

(GITA GOPI, J.) Pankaj

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter