Gujarat High Court
Jayantilal Madhavjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2099/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2099 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17089 of 2021
==========================================================
JAYANTILAL MADHAVJIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS.DEVANSHI PATEL AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 302 days caused
in preferring the First Appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta for the
applicant and learned AGP for the respondent - State.
Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted
that the judgment and decree passed on 13.02.2019 and
16.02.2019 respectively. Learned advocate for the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2099/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
has submitted that due to financial crunch, applicant could
not manage necessary fees for the purpose of litigation.
There is no intentional delay on the part of the applicant.
Thus, there is a delay in preferring the appeal.
3.1 It is further submitted that the present applicant
is unaware of the provisions of law, which could permit
him to file appeal, which is a statutory right. He has
submitted that in view of the settled principles of law in
the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayadu
and others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)
reported in 2017(12) SCC 840 and would submit that
considering the law laid down in aforementioned case, the
applicant is not claiming his right for the interest upon the
enhanced compensation, if any, for the delay period, if
appellant succeeds in First Appeal.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, has opposed the application and submitted that
the reasons assigned in the application are not sufficient
for condoning the delay.
5. Considering the submissions canvassed by
learned advocate for the applicant and contentions raised
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2099/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
in the application, it is needless to observe that in catena
of decisions, the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
is, while deciding an application for condonation of delay,
the liberal and justice orientated approach needs to be
adopted so that the substantive rights of the parties are
not defeated only on the ground of delay. To meet with
the equity, delay can be condoned. There is no intentional
delay on the part of the applicant. The delay has
sufficiently been explained. Hence, the delay is condoned
subject to condition that the claimant/s shall not claim
interest upon enhanced compensation, if any, for the
period of delay, if succeeds the appeal.
6. With these observations and directions, the
present Civil Application stands allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MANOJ
