Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Kangasiya Sumaben Sadabhai on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/1601/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1601 of 2021
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 39770 of 2019
================================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
KANGASIYA SUMABEN SADABHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NAGESH C SOOD(1928) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 20/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This Application has been filed praying for
condonation of delay of 174 days in filing of the
above First Appeal.
2. It is submitted that because of the inter-departmental
process and seeking information and sanction of the
concerned Officials, the above delay has occurred.
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 :-
C/CA/1601/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
"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.
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
C/CA/1601/2021 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
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."
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 174 days in filing of the First
Appeal is condoned. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
