Gujarat High Court
Pareshbhai Yogeshbhai Patel vs Abdulla Khan S/O Sanaulla Khan on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3327/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3327 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 32249 of 2024
==========================================================
PARESHBHAI YOGESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
ABDULLA KHAN S/O SANAULLA KHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the delay of 969
days has occasioned in preferring the appeal against the impugned
judgment and award dated 23.12.2021 owing to the reasons that the
applicant could not arrange the necessary finance to pay the requisite
Court fee and other expenses involved in preferring the appeal. He
further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but
has occasioned owing to the reasons of poverty of the applicant. He
further submitted that the applicants undertake to waive the interest for
the delayed period, on the enhanced amount of compensation, if the
appeal for enhancement is allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3327/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
3. Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.3 submitted that the delay has not been explained,
therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
4. Having considered the submission of the learned counsels for the
parties and having regard to the fact that owing to the poverty of the
applicant, the applicant could not prefer the appeal within the period of
limitation. The ground of delay pressed into service, in my considered
view, constitutes a sufficient cause to condone the delay. At this
juncture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in AIR (1987) SC 1353,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the guidelines for
condonation of delay and the same are reproduced hereunder:-
"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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3327/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
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."
5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present
case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mst. Katiji (supra), the present application deserves to be allowed
subject to the condition that the claimants shall not be entitled for any
interest, on the enhanced amount of compensation for the delayed
period, in case, the appeal for enhancement is allowed. In view of the
above, the delay is condoned and the present application stands
allowed. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
