Gujarat High Court
The State Of Gujarat vs Ghulam Hussenwala Hatimbhai ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/240/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 240 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 36028 of 2024
==========================================================
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
GHULAM HUSSENWALA HATIMBHAI FAJLEHUSEN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVAM PARIKH, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The captioned application has been filed, praying for
condoning the delay of 855 days caused in preferring the
captioned First Appeal whereby, challenge is made to the
judgment and award dated 20.12.2021 passed by learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahals at Godhara in Land
Acquisition Reference No.353 of 2013 & other allied matters.
2. Mr.Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader,
submitted that the certified copy of the judgment, was applied,
which was received by the Office of the District Government
Pleader on 29.04.2022. Immediately, the learned District
Government Pleader forwarded his opinion to the Office of the
Executive Engineer, Road and Building Department, Godhara.
Apropos which, proposal to prefer an appeal together with the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/240/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
opinion of the learned District Government Pleader, was sent
to the Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer from the Office
of Executive Engineer on 23.05.2022. The Land Acquisition
Officer, has also addressed a communication dated 24.04.2022
to the Revenue Department as well as to the Legal Department
and learned District Collector, Panchmahals with a request to
grant sanction to prefer an appeal against the judgment and
award. On 04.08.2022, the Office of the Superintendent
Engineer, forwarded it to the Roads and Building, Gandhingar
for its approval.
3. It is submitted that necessary details were called for by
the Roads and Building Department, Gandhinagar by
addressing a letter dated 29.08.2022 seeking necessary
information in connection with the reference proceedings,
which in turn, was received on 12.09.2022. Owing to
retirement, no further steps could be taken. Thereafter, there
were elections held in the month of December-2024 and in the
interregnum, no steps could be taken. The newly appointed
incumbent, took steps and queries were resolved in the month
of March-2023, which was followed by the communication
dated 12.04.2023 to the Executive Engineer satisfying the
queries raised by the Department. Constantly, thereafter,
steps were taken. Several communications were addressed
inter-departmentally and intra-departmentally and finally, the
approval was sanctioned by passing a resolution dated
21.05.2024, which was then received by the office of the
Government Pleader on 23.05.2024. Thereafter, the office of
the Government Pleader, has addressed a communication
dated 28.05.2024 requiring to provide the certified copies and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/240/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
other documents. Moreover, on 19.09.2024, the Office of the
Executive Engineer, Roads and Building Department, Godhara,
provided the draft for paying the Court fees enabling the
appeal to be filed before this Court; steps were taken and
ultimately, the appeal could be filed with a delay of 855 days.
4. It is submitted that the delay has occassioned due to
procedural implications and unforeseen contingencies and that
there was never any intention to delay the proceedings. Time
was consumed in taking necessary steps which culminated into
filing of the appeal. The possibilities of the burden was also
assessed and examined and considering the judgment, it was
decided that the appeal shall be filed and which accordingly,
has been filed.
5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. Vs.
Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107. It has been held and
observed that 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 the Court. It has been held and observed that
ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an
appeal late. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/240/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
6. Heard Mr.Shivam Parikh, learned Assistant Government
Pleader.
7. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to
enter appearance.
8. In the present application, the delay has been explained
as to how, the file has been moved inter-departmentally and
intra-departmentally. Since the Court was not convinced,
directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to file an
additional affidavit which, has now been filed providing the
details of the steps taken, time consumed and final decision for
preferring an appeal. It can be seen that the file, has moved
inter-departmentally and intra-departmentally and after taking
necessary approval at highest level that the appeal has been
filed. Moreover, necessary documents and information was
provided to the Office of the Government Pleader which, after
taking steps has prepared and finalized the appeal. In the
process, there occurred a delay of 855 days. In the judgment in
the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors Vs.
Katiji, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Paragraph No.3 has observed
thus:-
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by
enacting Section 5 (Any appeal or any application, other than an
application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. may be admitted after the prescribed period if
the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within
such period) 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/240/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
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:-
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.
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 juidical 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.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was
sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the
appeal.
The fact that it was the 'State' which was seeking condonation and
not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality
before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a liti-
gant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is admin istered
in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-
motherly treatment when the 'State' is the applicant praying for
condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/240/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or
hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the
inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file
pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less
difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event,
the State which represents the collective cause of the community,
does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The Courts therefore
have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in
the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause".
So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to
matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on
merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on
merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present
appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The
order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time barred,
is therefore. set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted
to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on
merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the
sides."
9. The explanation reveals that the delay has been
sufficiently explained and adopting the justice oriented
approach, this Court is of the considered view that the delay
deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned. Rule is
made absolute. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
