The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ... vs Satishkumar Ambalal Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 9040 Guj

     C/CA/1259/2020                                   ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1259 of 2020
                                       In
                         F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2655 of 2020

================================================================
               THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD GODHRA
                               Versus
                    SATISHKUMAR AMBALAL PATEL
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                Date : 12/10/2022

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. This Application has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 540 days in filing of the above First Appeal.

2. It is submitted that the judgment and award was pronounced on 30.04.2018. After forwarding the certified copy of the judgment and award to the Head Office for seeking appropriate instructions, the Review Application was decided to be preferred and further, delay condonation application was also moved, which came to be granted. On 20.07.2019, the Review

C/CA/1259/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022

Application was numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Application No.298 of 2019 in context with M.A.C.P. No.3197 of 2017. It is further submitted that after according an opportunity to both the sides, the Review Application came to be rejected on 12.12.2019. It is also submitted that there is no negligence on part of the appellant and rather they were before the learned Tribunal pursuing the Review Application and that has led to the delay of 540 days in preferring the above First Appeal.

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 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

C/CA/1259/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022

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/1259/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022

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 540 days in filing of the First Appeal is condoned.

Sd/-

(GITA GOPI,J) CAROLINE