Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company vs Narayanbhai Jethabhai Patel on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/CA/1750/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 of 2019
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 18320 of 2019
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
NARAYANBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 22/02/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate for the
applicant, Mr.Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for
respondent no.2 and Mr.Darji, learned advocate for
respondent no.5
2. By way of this application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 2112 days occurred in preferring
the appeal.
3. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the
applicant submits that after receiving certified copy of the
judgment and award, the same was sent to the Divisional
Office at Himmatnagar and the Divisional Office found that
C/CA/1750/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
the vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-9 C-4970 was not
insured with the applicant insurance company, while the
correct registration number ought to have been GJ-9 C-
4470, as per the premium payment receipt. He further
stated that it was instructed to take appropriate action
and relevant documents were forwarded. He also states
that thereafter learned advocate was instructed often to
initiate the proceedings but he failed to respond and,
there was no other alternative but to replace the panel
advocate to prefer the proceedings before learned
Tribunal. He also states that by communication dated
4.3.2015 advocate was informed accordingly and,
thereafter, review application is filed with application for
condonation of delay on 9.3.2015.
3.1 Mr.Nanavati further states that review application
No.1 of 2017 came to be decided on 5.12.2018 and after
receiving certified copy of the order, it was forwarded to
Divisional Office, Himmatnagar, vide communication dated
24.1.2019. Thereafter, procedure was initiated to move
this Court for challenging said order passed in review
application. Accordingly, Special Civil Application No.7545
of 2019 is filed. He also submits that, thereafter, under
legal advise insurance company has also decided to
challenge the main judgment and award of learned
Tribunal and, accordingly, present appeal is filed and
delay of 2112 days has occasioned in filing present
C/CA/1750/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
appeal.
4. Mr.Darji, learned advocate for the respondent states
that delay is not sufficiently explained, since laches in
taking legal recourse cannot be made a ground for praying
to condone delay.
5. In view of above facts, it is clear that insurance
company has found discrepancies in the award of the
learned Tribunal and, therefore, review application is filed
with an application for condonation of delay. However, the
review application was not entertained by the Tribunal.
After undergoing necessary inter-departmental procedure
and after receiving sanction and approval, order passed in
review application was also challenged. Thereafter, main
award and judgment is also challenged by filing present
appeal.
6. 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
C/CA/1750/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
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 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 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/1750/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023
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."
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties
and considering the above legal position, and as the delay
is sufficiently explained and in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case of the case, the delay of 2112
days occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be
condoned and is hereby condoned.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Rule
is made absolute. First Appeal be listed on 9.3.2023 along
with Special Civil Application No.7545 of 2019.
(GITA GOPI,J)
R.S. MALEK
