Gujarat High Court
Kalpeshbhai Kanchanbhai Gandhi vs Jaydeepbhai Navnitbhai Patel on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/2363/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2363 of 2020
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 19782 of 2020
==========================================================
KALPESHBHAI KANCHANBHAI GANDHI
Versus
JAYDEEPBHAI NAVNITBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 13/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 318 days caused in filing the
First Appeal.
2. It is stated in the application that the
certified copy of the judgment was provided to the
applicant in the month of December, 2019, as the
same was misplaced from the court record and
hence after relocating the same a fresh application
for certified copy of award was filed on 03.01.2020
which was ready for delivery on 05.01.2020 and was
delivered to advocate on 13.02.2020 and therefore
the delay of 318 days caused in filing the same.
C/CA/2363/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2022
3. Opposing to the grant of application, Ms.
Kirti S.Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent,
submits that the cause of delay, occurred in
preferring the First Appeal, has not been sufficiently
explained and therefore the present application may
be rejected.
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:-
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-
C/CA/2363/2020 ORDER DATED: 13/06/2022
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.
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 318 days caused in filing the First
Appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. Rule
is made absolute.
(GITA GOPI, J.)
Pankaj
