Gujarat High Court
Lh Of Khant Hirabhai Chagganbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/814/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 814 of 2022
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9519 of 2019
================================================================
LH OF KHANT HIRABHAI CHAGGANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA PATEL for MR SK PATEL(654) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.6.1,1.6.2,1.6.3,1.6.4,2,3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS VRUNDA C SHAH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 04/05/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent - State.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellants Mr. Aditya Patel has
submitted that the applicants have filed an Appeal against
the orders dated 29.09.2016 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa in L.R.C. Case
No.928 of 2010 (Old No. : 1195 of 2006). It is submitted
that the applicants hail from a tribal area and are facing
financial difficulties. It is further submitted that the
applicants were not in constant touch with their lawyer
for seeking legal advise and even for procuring certified
C/CA/814/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
copies. It is therefore, prayed the delay of 810 days
caused in filing the First Appeal may be condoned.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicants 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 should receive liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice. It is
submitted that the applicants are 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. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits
that there is an inordinate delay of more than 810 days
and the delay in filing the application would cause loss
to the Government as the matter has been sufficiently
dealt with before the trial Court and thus, urged to reject
the application.
5. 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
C/CA/814/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
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.
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."
C/CA/814/2022 ORDER DATED: 04/05/2022
6. The applicants are ready and willing to forego the
interest, if at all on the enhanced compensation or any
statutory benefits arising from such compensation.
7. Thus, taking into consideration the principle as laid down
in the above referred judgments and as the litigant does
not stand to benefit from holding the application, the
delay of 810 days is condoned, with a condition that the
applicants shall not be entitled to interest and enhanced
compensation and consequential benefits for the period of
delay.
8. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule
made absolute.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
