Gujarat High Court
Ramabhai Chhatrabhai Raval vs Arjunbhai Laxmanbhai Pagi on 21 February, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/910/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 910 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4500 of 2024
==========================================================
RAMABHAI CHHATRABHAI RAVALRAMABHAI CHHATRABHAI RAVAL &
ANR.
Versus
ARJUNBHAI LAXMANBHAI PAGI & ORS.ARJUNBHAI LAXMANBHAI PAGI
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 21/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants.
2. By way of this application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the applicants have prayed
for condonation of delay of 744 days occurred in
preferring the appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that
the applicants lost their only son and because of
that incident and further owing to pandemic Covid-
19, had shifted to Saurashtra region and had no
source of income and gradually they could have an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/910/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
information about the judgment from the advocate
making arrangement for the funds, had preferred an
appeal, which had led to delay of 744 days in
preferring the appeal. Advocate Mr. Bhalodi for
the applicants submitted that the applicants are
ready and wiling to waive the interest for the
delayed period.
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
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/910/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2024
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 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.
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/910/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/02/2024
undefined
5. Having heard the learned advocate for the
applicants 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 744 days
occurred in filing the appeal deserves to be
condoned and is hereby condoned. It is ordered
that no interest would be granted for the delayed
period in case of enhancement of the compensation
amount.
6. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
