Gujarat High Court
Saurashtra Food Pvt. Limited Prop. ... vs Paschim Guajrat Vij Company Limited ... on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 of 2014
==========================================================
SAURASHTRA FOOD PVT. LIMITED PROP. MAHESHKUMAR D LADUMOR
Versus
PASCHIM GUAJRAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DEPUTY
ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This Revision Application under section 115 of CPC is filed
challenging the judgment and order passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Rajula in Civil Misc. Application No.13
of 2013, whereby, delay of less than one year was condoned with
condition to pay cost of Rs.1000/-.
2. Factual aspect needed to be noticed that Paschim Gujarat
Vij Company Ltd. Filed Special Civil suit No.20 of 2001 before
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amreli for recovery of
outstanding amount of Rs.4,57,004.37 ps. Against Saurashtra
Food Pvt. Ltd. Suit was contested and dismissed after
appreciating the evidence. Being aggrieved by judgment and
decree passed by learned Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.20
of 2001, Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Intend to file First
Appeal before the learned Appellate Court, however, delay was
caused in tune of less than one year and therefore, Civil Misc.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
Application was preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Learned Appellate Court after hearing learned advocates for the
parties, allowed the petition and condoned delay with cost of
Rs.1000/- to be paid to the present applicant within 30 days of
order passed by the Court.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, applicant who is original
opponent has filed present Revision Application.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the applicant having
referred to judgment in the case of Office of the Chief Post
Master General v/s. Living Media India Ltd. [2012 (3) SCC
563] would submit that perusal of the application filed by the
original plaintiff seeking condonation of delay, no specific dates
covering both ends are stated in the petition. No excuse much
less merit-less excuse is made. Reasons to condone delay is that
original plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and would not get
justice. Except this two reasons, there are no other reasons
pleaded by the plaintiff to condone delay. They are insufficient
and insignificant and therefore, delay condoned by the learned
Appellate Court is erroneous and approach of learned Appellate
Court to condone delay could not witness absence of any
reasons.
4.1. Mainly on above arguments, learned advocate
Mr.Majmudar submitted to allow the present Revision
Application and quash and set aside impugned order.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Dave for the respondent as against
aforesaid arguments would refer to the judgment in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v/s. Mst.
Katiji and Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353] to submit that Court
should take pragmatic approach while considering application
for condonation of delay. It is submitted that litigant should not
be thrown out on technical consideration rather litigant should
be permitted to agitate their cause for substantial justice. He
would submit that original plaintiff has no personal rivalry with
Saurashtra Food Pvt. Ltd. applicant herein. Original plaintiff
was agitating its cause to recover public money as amount of bill
was not paid by applicant herein and since there is involvement
of recovery of public money, the Court should take pragmatic
view. It is further argued that Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd.
has certain office procedures to be followed for approval of filing
of appeal and it took time and the Court should consider this
aspects. It is further submitted that learned Appellate Court has
also considered this aspects and condoned delay. There is no
error much less error of understanding law has been committed
by learned Appellate Court which bars interference of this Court
under revisional jurisdiction.
5.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the
Revision Application.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, at the
outset, let refer para 8 of the impugned order, whereby learned
Appellate Court has ascribed reasons to condone delay. Para 8
reads as under :-
"8. Looking to the rival contentions of both the L.As., it is
undisputed fact that the proposed appeal filed after the
delay of one year. In my view, the applicant having the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
reasonable cause to file the proposed appeal after the delay
of one year. Suppose the present application may not be
allowed so the applicant will suffer for justice and that loss
will not be compensated in terms of money and if suppose
the present application will be allowed so both the parties
will get the justice and when the right of parties deeply
involved in the civil matter so on the technical ground that
appeal is not filed within the period of limitation on that
ground such type of application may not be rejected and it is
not proper to thrown out this application without any good
cause. Not only that, but the Hon. Apex Court has also given
direction that the delay condonation application should be
liberal and not technical, and therefore, as discussed above
and looking to the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, if
the delay of one year may be condoned with condition to
pay costs of Rs.1000/- then the same would not be harm to
the opponent. Hence, the applicant succeeds to prove the
Issue No.1 and, therefore, I decide the Issue No.1 in the
affirmative."
7. At this stage, I may refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag
and Anr. v/s. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (supra). In the said
judgment, it is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 3 as
under :-
"3. The legislature has conferred the power to condone
delay by enacting Section 51 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 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
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 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.
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 litigant,
are accorded the same treatment and the law is
administered in an even handed manner. There is no
warrant for according a stepmotherly treatment when the
'State' is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In
fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal
machinary (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or
hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
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."
8. In the case on hand, delay is less than one year and suit is
filed to recover amount of supplementary bill allegedly not paid
by the applicant herein. One cannot ignore that fact that
Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. has to follow certain
procedural aspects to take decision to file appeal, that may not
be treated differently than ordinary litigation yet some leniency
should be granted to Paschim Gujarat Vij company Ltd. and as
delay is less than one year having no mala fide deserve to be
condoned and rightly condoned by learned Appellate Court.
9. So far as judgment in the case of Office of the Chief Post
Mater General (supra) relied by learned advocate for the
applicant is concerned, it would not apply to the facts of the
present case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/22/2014 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
10. In the result, the Revision Application sans merits and
accordingly, stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief
granted earlier, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
