Gujarat High Court
Vinaben Navnitkumar Solanki vs Vipulkumar Girvatsinh Gohil on 1 February, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1916/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1916 of
2023
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 32952 of 2023
================================================================
VINABEN NAVNITKUMAR SOLANKI
Versus
VIPULKUMAR GIRVATSINH GOHIL
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRUTHVIRAJSINH V SOLANKI(10190) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 01/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This Application has been filed praying for
condonation of delay of 84 days in filing of the
above First Appeal.
2. It is submitted that the applicants were struggling to
maintain the family. Further, there was the
responsibility of two minor children. In addition,
the compensation amount was not received as the
Insurance Company was exonerated and hence, the
applicant - widow had to make financial
arrangements and all these factors have contributed
to the above delay.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1916/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
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:-
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1916/2023 ORDER DATED: 01/02/2024
undefined
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 84 days in
filing of the First Appeal is condoned.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
