Gujarat High Court
Vijay Rameshbhai Pathar vs Meghnaben W/O Vijaybhai Paathar on 21 November, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2963/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2963 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15335 of 2025
==========================================================
VIJAY RAMESHBHAI PATHAR
Versus
MEGHNABEN W/O VIJAYBHAI PAATHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. M.S. SHAIKH FOR A S TIMBALIA(7372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
AMRITA A PATEL(7534) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 21/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the
delay of 455 days caused in preferring the captioned First Appeal.
2. Mr. M.S. Shaikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. A.S.
Timbalia, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that after the
judgment was rendered on 04.11.2023, some time got consumed in
obtaining the certified copy. It is submitted that the applicant is a
permanent resident of Surat, whereas the proceedings were
conducted before the Junagadh, which is at the considerable distance
of 500 Kms. from Surat. It is further submitted that accordingly,
prompt and immediate steps could not be taken. Upon coming to
know of the judgment, as stated earlier, immediately, the certified
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2963/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
copy was procured. Once, having received the necessary opinion the
papers were arranged, instructions were gathered and were provided
to the learned advocate, who, in turn, has taken steps for filing the
captioned appeal. The delay, is a bona fide and cannot be said that
there was any negligence on the part of the applicant-appellant. It is,
therefore, urged that the delay may kindly be condoned.
3. Ms. Amrita A. Patel, learned advocate, has suggested for
passing the appropriate order, in view of the explanation offered so
also the additional affidavit of the applicant.
4. The delay is of 455 days, which is substantial; however, the
applicant, has explained by stating that the proceedings were
conducted at the Family Court, Junagadh, while the applicant, is
staying at Surat. It is submitted that considering the distance and the
engagement of the applicant, it was difficult to take necessary steps
at the earliest. Despite which, steps were taken by applying the
certified copy, which was provided. Thereafter, the learned advocate
was approached, who, gave his opinion and after anaylizing and
assessing the judgment and the appeal was filed. It is true that
substantial time got consumed in taking steps; however, the appeal is
preferred offering sufficient explanation.
5. It is also well settled that the acceptance of explanation,
should be the rule and refusal an exception also, when no negligence
or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting
party. There is no quarrel to the proposition that a litigant does
not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2963/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/11/2025
undefined
serious risk. When a 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.
6. Coupled with the aforesaid proposition so also the explanation
offered, this Court, is of the considered opinion that delay of 455 days
caused in filing the captioned appeal deserves to be condoned and is
hereby condoned.
7. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is
made absolute. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/SFS/21/11
