Gujarat High Court
Nuranbibi Allarakh Diwan Expired vs Pravinbhai Shankarbhai Patel on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/2528/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2528 of 2022
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26306 of 2022
==========================================================
NURANBIBI ALLARAKH DIWAN EXPIRED
Versus
PRAVINBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 14/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 70 days caused in filing the First
Appeal.
2. Mr. Nishit A.Bhalodi, learned advocate for the
applicant states that since all the applicants are lady and
dealing advocate could not inform regarding the
pronouncement of the judgment and for arranging of
funds, the delay of 70 days occurred in preferring the
First Appeal.
C/CA/2528/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022
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 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.
C/CA/2528/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022
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
C/CA/2528/2022 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022
legalize injustice on technical grounds but
because it is capable of removing injustice and
is expected to do so."
4. 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 70 days caused in filing the First Appeal is
condoned. The application is allowed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj
