Gujarat High Court
Maheshsinh Devjibhai Rajput vs M/S Neptune Associates Through ... on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1391 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5183 of 2025
==========================================================
MAHESHSINH DEVJIBHAI RAJPUT
Versus
M/S NEPTUNE ASSOCIATES THROUGH PARTNERS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL VYAS, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR SHRENIK R JASANI(9486)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHRUV K DAVE(6928) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,2.1,2.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 30/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
By this application the applicant, has prayed for condoning
delay of 317 days caused in preferring the captioned Appeal
whereby, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 03 rd
January,2024 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge
below Exh.17.
2. Mr.Dhruv Dave, learned advocate, has tendered affidavit. The
same is directed to be taken on record.
3. Mr.Dhaval Vyas, learned senior counsel, appearing with
Mr.Shrenik Jasani, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted
that the order, was passed in the month of January, 2024.
Subsequently thereto, the applicant, suffer health issues. The
applicant having experienced severe chest pain, was admitted to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
the hospital on 16th February, 2024. After the discharge, the
applicant was advised by the doctor to take complete rest and
therefore, no steps could be taken. Unfortunately, mother of the
applicant was seriously ill, however she passed away in the month
of July, 2024. It is another reason that no steps could be taken.
Within the period close to three months, the applicant, was again
hospitalised and has received medical treatment. Subsequently, he
was discharged. As if this was not enough, the applicant, again
experienced chest pain and had to undergo angiography in the
month of November, 2024. The applicant, all throughout, was
suffering with health issues or the social issues and could not take
necessary steps. Having settled to some extent, the applicant could
manage to take steps for the purpose of preferring appeal
challenging the orders passed by the courts below. Hence, there
occurred delay of 317 days in preferring the appeal.
3.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Shakuntala
Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 575
wherein, it has been held and observed that the words "sufficient
cause" should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial
justice. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of
State of Haryana vs. Chandra Mani & Ors. reported in (1996) 3
SCC 132. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of
Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad Bank reported in (2000) 9 SCC
733, with further reliance on the judgment in the case of State of
Nagaland vs. Lipok AO reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752. It is,
therefore, urged that delay which has occurred, is bona fide and
only owing to the constraint on the part of the applicant that no
steps could be taken immediately. Request is made to condone the
delay considering the explanation.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Dhruv Dave, learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
appearing for the respondent, has vehemently opposed the request
for condoning the delay. It is submitted that it is very easy now a
days, for any person to offer the excuse of he suffering with
diabetes because it is a common comorbidity. It is submitted that
after the judgment was rendered in the month of January, 2024,
there was sufficient time available to the applicant to take steps till
the month of February, 2024, but no steps were taken. Even
thereafter in the interregnum, there was sufficient time available
with the applicant to have taken steps but the applicant chose not
to. Moreover, the reports, also suggest to be normal and hence,
placing reliance on the reports, would not be enough to explain the
delay or the applicant having not taken steps for the delay. It is
submitted that the judgment, was rendered in the month of
January, 2024 whereas the Appeal has been filed in the month of
March, 2025 which has caused inordinate and unexplained delay at
the end of the applicant. It is submitted that the explanation
offered, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be sufficient
explanation and hence, the applicant, having failed to explain day-
to-day delay caused in preferring the captioned Appeal, it deserves
to be rejected.
4.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Majji
Sannemma Alias Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. reported in
(2021) 18 SCC 384. It is submitted that the delay in the said case,
was of 1011 days and the Apex Court, having considered the
explanation, was of the view that the delay since was not explained
properly, the same could not have been condoned by the High
Court exercising its discretion. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment in the case of Basawraj & Anr. vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81. It is submitted
that it has been held and observed that "law of limitation may
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its
rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to
extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result
flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no
power to ignore that provision to relieve what is considers a
distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may
cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court
has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. It is,
therefore, urged that in absence of any sufficient explanation
offered on day-to-day basis, the delay, may not be condoned and
the application, deserves to be rejected.
5. Heard the learned counsel and advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
6. The application, is seeking condonation of delay of 317 days
caused in preferring the captioned Appeal. In support of the
explanation, the applicant, has averred that the judgment was
rendered in the month of January, 2024. In the month of February,
2024, he was admitted to Bhana Hospital and has taken the
treatment. In support of such averment, the applicant, has placed
on record the pathology laboratory reports indicating the health
condition of the applicant. It is thereafter, the applicant has
indicated that mother of the applicant, passed away in the month of
July, 2024. In the month of October, 2024 the applicant, took
treatment at Prisha Hospital. Reports of Prisha Hospital are placed
on record. Immediately within a period of one month, the applicant
has undergone angiography. In support thereof, report is placed on
record. Thus, the explanation has been offered by the applicant to
substantiate the delay caused in preferring the captioned Appeal.
7. As stated hereinabove, the applicant has taken treatments on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
various occasion, either as an indoor patient or outdoor patient. At
one point of time, unfortunate event of death of his mother took
place. Faced with such a situation, the applicant could not take
steps.
8. Though in the case on hand, it is a specific stand taken by the
respondent that the applicant has failed to explain day-to-day delay.
The objection, is bereft of any basis, inasmuch as, it is a well
settled proposition of law that every day's delay must be explained
does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The
doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and
pragmatic manner. It is also by now well settled that 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 a vested right in injustice being done
because of a non-deliberate delay. It has been held by the Apex
Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr.
vs. Mst Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 that 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.
9. In the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani (supra), it
has been held and observed that 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 justice being done because of a
non-deliberate delay. The expression "sufficient cause" should,
therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented
approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for
explaining every day's delay. The matter should be decided on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. It is by now well
settled that sufficient cause is a cause for which the respondent
could not be blamed for his absence. It is also well settled that in
the context of sufficient cause, it means that party should not have
acted in negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its
part in view of the facts and circumstances of the case or it cannot
be alleged that the party has not acted diligently or remained
inactive. The requirement, is that the party should satisfy the court
that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his
case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court
should not allow the application for condonation of delay. It is also
well settled that the justification of the explanation does not mean
that the explanation should be of each and every day.
10. In the case on hand, it is not a case of the respondent that the
applicant, was not admitted to the hospital. It is also not the case of
the respondent that reports and the certificates are back dated or
concocted. The respondent objects only on the ground that the
applicant, has failed to explain day-to-day delay. Also, the stand
taken by the respondent is that the applicant has failed to explain
the delay from January, 2024 to November, 2024, which is also
misconceived and misplaced. It appears that the deponent of the
affidavit-in-reply has not properly read and understood the contents
inasmuch as, there is an explanation for the month of February,
2024 till the month of December, 2024. The explanation offered
about the treatment and death of the mother, in the opinion of this
Court, is sufficient explanation to the delay, which prevented the
applicant from prosecuting the proceedings.
11. The judgment relied on by the respondent in the case of Majji
Sannemma alias Sanyasirad vs. Reddy Sridevi (supra), cannot be
applied to the facts of the present case inasmuch as, there the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1391/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
delay occurred was of 1011 days and explanation offered, was for
brief period. However, explanation was absent for almost four
years which, weighed with the Apex Court for not condoning the
delay, as the Apex Court was of the opinion that the explanation,
was totally absent. In the case of Basawraj vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer (supra), the Appeal preferred before the High
Court was almost after five-and-half years with no satisfactory
explanation offered. In absence of any explanation, the Apex Court
did not condone the delay. So is not the case on hand.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court, is of the opinion
that there was sufficient cause, which prevented the applicant,
from preferring the Appeal and hence, explanation offered is
acceptable to this Court and is of the opinion that the delay
deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned. The Civil
Application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is made
absolute. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
ANUP
