Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Hirenbhai Gulabrai Vasani vs Birju G Vasani
2023 Latest Caselaw 6351 Guj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 6351 Guj
Judgement Date : 31 August, 2023

Gujarat High Court
Hirenbhai Gulabrai Vasani vs Birju G Vasani on 31 August, 2023
Bench: Gita Gopi
                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/CA/1081/2023                                      ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023

                                                                                          undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1081 of 2023

                                         In

                         F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2849 of 2023

==========================================================
                           HIRENBHAI GULABRAI VASANI
                                     Versus
                                BIRJU G VASANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                 Date : 31/08/2023

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. The present application has been filed

for condonation of delay of 853 days caused in

filing the First Appeal.

2. Mr. Mohsin M.Hakim, learned advocate for

the applicant submitted that the applicant could

not immediately proceed for filing the appeal

after the judgment and award, and could applied

for the same only on 26.10.2021, and after

receiving legal advise and after making

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1081/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023

undefined

provisions for Court fees and other expenses,

could prefer the appeal to challenge the judgment

and award, and Covid-19 pandemic has also added

to the delay. Mr. Hakim submitted that the

applicant is willing to waive the interest for

the delayed period, in case, when the prayer for

enhancement of compensation would come to be

allowed.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1081/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023

undefined

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1081/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023

undefined

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1081/2023 ORDER DATED: 31/08/2023

undefined

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 853 days

caused in filing the First Appeal is condoned.

5. It is kept open for both the parties to

agitate regarding the interest for the delayed

period at the final hearing of the appeal. The

application is allowed.

(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter