Gujarat High Court
Kotak Mahindra Pvt. Ltd vs Lh Of Rameshbhai Gabhrubhai Makwana on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5098/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5098 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23419 of 2025
With
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23419 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23419 of 2025
==========================================================
KOTAK MAHINDRA PVT. LTD.
Versus
LH OF RAMESHBHAI GABHRUBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay of 973
days has occasioned in preferring the appeal against the impugned
judgment and award dated 24.08.2022 passed in MACP No.155/2016
by the learned Tribunal, Rajkot. He further submitted that the
appellant/claimant was never served with the notice of the claim
petition, as the appellant is not having any office at the address
mentioned in the claim petition. He further submitted that the applicant
came to know about the pendency of the proceedings, when the
applicant served with the notice of the execution. He further submitted
that the applicant has deposited entire decreetal amount before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5098/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
learned Tribunal. He further submitted that the delay is neither
intentional nor malafide but has occasioned owing to the reason that the
proceedings were not within the knowledge of the applicant.
3. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the
applicant and perused the record. Perusal of the record transpires that
in the claim petition, the different address of the applicant has been
mentioned while in the present application, the applicant is having its
office at Spire-2, Office No.301-305, 3rd Floor, 150 Feet Road, Near
Ayodhya Chowk, Rajkot. Since the applicant was never served with the
notice of the claim petition, therefore, the claimant was not having the
knowledge of pendency of proceedings and passing of the judgment
and award in the claim petition. The ground of non-service of notice of
proceedings, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5098/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
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."
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case
and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mst. Katiji (supra), the present application deserves to be allowed and
Hence, the delay is condoned. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
