Gujarat High Court
Shweta Sunil Lodha vs Navid Iftikar Bagadiya on 19 February, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/904/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 904 of 2024
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5348 of 2024
================================================================
SHWETA SUNIL LODHA
Versus
NAVID IFTIKAR BAGADIYA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 19/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This Application has been filed praying for
condonation of delay of 627 days in filing of the
above First Appeal.
2. It is submitted that the judgment and award of the
learned Tribunal was pronounced in the year 2021.
The applicant had suffered a medical disability and
the individual Mediclaim came to be rejected. In
addition, there was a national wide lockdown on
account of the Covid-19 pandemic. It is further
submitted that the medical condition of the applicant
deteriorated from time to time. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/904/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
submitted that the judgment and award of the
learned Tribunal has been challenged by the
Insurance Company by way of First Appeal No.3684
of 2021. It is also submitted that the compensation
amount could not be received in time and the
applicant was required to make financial
arrangements for payment of Court fees and other
expenses and all these factors have contributed to the
above delay.
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 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/904/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
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."
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 627 days in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/904/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024
undefined
filing of the First Appeal is condoned.
5. Let the present matter be listed alongwith First
Appeal No.3684 of 2021 on FEBRUARY 21, 2024.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
