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

Ravjibhai Rupsinh Thakor Deleted ... vs Usmanbhai Abdulbhai Vora
2022 Latest Caselaw 5806 Guj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5806 Guj
Judgement Date : 30 June, 2022

Gujarat High Court
Ravjibhai Rupsinh Thakor Deleted ... vs Usmanbhai Abdulbhai Vora on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
     C/CA/544/2022                                ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 544 of 2022

                     In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4513 of 2022

==========================================================
          RAVJIBHAI RUPSINH THAKOR DELETED AS EXPIRED
                              Versus
                   USMANBHAI ABDULBHAI VORA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 30/06/2022

                                ORAL ORDER

1. This application has been filed by the applicants praying for condonation of delay of 796 days occurred in filing of the above First Appeal.

2. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that on the death of the son, the claim petition was preferred and thereafter, the father too died and widow mother with son was only left to take care of the court fees and legal expenses and being from lower strata of the society, the applicants could not make timely arrangement and could not contact advocate in time. Thus, there is a delay of 796 days which may be condoned in the interest of justice. Learned advocate further submits that the claimants are ready and willing to forgo interest if at all compensation is

C/CA/544/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022

granted.

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 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 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 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 have vested right in

C/CA/544/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/06/2022

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."

4. Considering the submissions advanced and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ratio laid down in the above judgment, the present application is allowed and the delay of 796 days caused in filing of the First Appeal is condoned. It is directed that interest qua the delayed period shall not be granted on the compensation that may be ultimately granted in favour of the claimants.

(GITA GOPI,J) H.M. PATHAN

 
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