Gujarat High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Banshibhai Bhaliyabhai Rathava on 21 June, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/1153/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1153 of 2020
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 8168 of 2020
==========================================================
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
BANSHIBHAI BHALIYABHAI RATHAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 7
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 8
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,6,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 232 days caused in filing the
First Appeal.
2. It is stated in the application that the
applicant has applied for certified copy of the
judgment on 27.09.2018 which was received by the
applicant company in the month of November, 2019.
3. It appears that respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and
5 have been served; however, none appears on their
behalf.
C/CA/1153/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022
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-
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.
C/CA/1153/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2022
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 232 days caused in filing the First
Appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. Rule
is made absolute.
(GITA GOPI, J.)
Pankaj
