Gujarat High Court
Meghvilal Narayanlal Sharma vs Asuba Jaswantsinh Zala on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1010/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1010 of 2023
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22928 of 2023
==========================================================
MEGHVILAL NARAYANLAL SHARMA
Versus
ASUBA JASWANTSINH ZALA
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 23/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
2. By way of this application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant has
prayed for condonation of delay of 518 days
occurred in preferring the appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits
that the vehicle in question was damaged in
flood and there was a total loss and it was
sold under salvage contract and thus, stated
that it ought not to have been used on the
road. However, under the contract, the
insurance policy would be covered but being a
contractual transaction, third party
liability as secured in the policy would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1010/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
covered on the date of the accident. It is
further stated that the insurance company of
the car was not joined as the party and the
applicant had filed the written statement and
plea of salvage contract was taken in the
written statement filed by the applicant and
only after receiving the notice by the
claimants of their proposed intention to file
the execution, the applicant could know about
the judgment and award and thereafter, on
seeking legal assistance, has proposed to
file appeal.
4. 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 meaningful manner which
subserves the ends of justice that
being the life-purpose for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1010/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
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 condoned 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1010/2023 ORDER DATED: 23/08/2023
undefined
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."
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the
applicant and 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 518 days occurred in filing the
appeal deserves to be condoned and is hereby
condoned.
6. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
