Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller vs Rekhaben Girishbhai Patel on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6031/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6031 of
2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3457 of 2012
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
Versus
REKHABEN GIRISHBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocates for the parties.
Considering the averments made in the application
and submissions made at the bar and also considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and
Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6031/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/6031/2024 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
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."
This application for condonation is allowed. The delay caused
in filing the first appeal is condoned. Registry to register the
First Appeal and place for hearing.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
