Rekhaben Mafatbhai Patel vs Harishchandra Ravabachan Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 67 Guj

     C/CA/3467/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3467 of 2022

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 30059 of 2022

======================================================
                  REKHABEN MAFATBHAI PATEL
                                Versus
             HARISHCHANDRA RAVABACHAN YADAV
======================================================
Appearance:
DEV D PATEL(8264) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
======================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                                Date : 03/01/2023

                                ORAL ORDER

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for to condone the delay of 100 days caused in preferring the main first appeal against the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal.

2. Having regard to the submissions made and considering the averments made in the application, this application deserves to be allowed, more particularly, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another V. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:

"The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 51 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

C/CA/3467/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023

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 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.

Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal....."

C/CA/3467/2022 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2023

3. Accordingly, the application succeeds and is allowed accordingly. Delay, as aforesaid, caused in preferring the main first appeal, is condoned.

[ A. C. Joshi, J. ] hiren /9