Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Natvarbhai Naranbhai Vaghela on 13 October, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/2669/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2669 of 2022
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30290 of 2022
================================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
NATVARBHAI NARANBHAI VAGHELA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 13/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This Application has been filed praying for
condonation of delay of 8 days in filing of the above
First Appeal.
2. 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
C/CA/2669/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022
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.
C/CA/2669/2022 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2022
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."
3. 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 8 days in filing of the First
Appeal is condoned.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
CAROLINE
