Gujarat High Court

Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 September, 2025

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/4844/2024                                ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025

                                                                                                            undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4844 of
                                                    2024

                                               In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26426 of 2024

                      ==========================================================
                                  GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
                                                      Versus
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS RAJVI PATEL(9620) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
                                          Date : 09/09/2025
                                           ORAL ORDER

1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

1963 for praying to condone delay of 1001 days which has

taken place in filing of the First Appeal.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Rajvi Patel for the applicant,

learned AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4

and learned advocate Mr. Manthan Bhatt for respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned

judgment and decree dated 30.9.2019 came to be passed by

learned 18th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

Civil Suit No.633 of 1998. Thereafter, due to Covid, no steps

could be taken by the applicant challenging the impugned

judgment and decree. Thereafter, in the year 2022, the present

applicant came to know that opponent No.4 - Gujarat Pollution

Control Board has filed first appeal No.1494 of 2022 challenging

the impugned judgment and decree. The original plaintiff filed

execution petition in the year 2020. The advocate concerned

convinced applicant that since the appeal is filed by opponent

No.4, which will take care of interest of all the defendants as

the decree is joint and severed. Resultantly, the applicant

remained under a bonafide impression that the appeal which

has been filed by opponent No.4 will take care of the interest of

present applicant. However, first appeal No.1494 of 2022 was

admitted and the rule of admission was issued. On perusal of

the impugned order as well as upon oral advice of the advocate

concerned, the applicant found it necessary to prefer an appeal

and, therefore, an application for certified copy was made on

1.8.2024. It is contended that the applicant is a state

government controlled statutory corporation. There is no

intentional delay on the part of the applicant. The explanation

which has been assigned in the application is sufficient to

condone delay. No other submissions are made except the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

above.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent - plaintiff has

mainly relied upon the contentions raised in affidavit in reply. It

is further contended that the applicant was aware about

passing of the judgment and decree when the notice of

execution was served upon the applicant. The explanation that

the applicant remained under bonafide impression that since

opponent No.4 has preferred the appeal would cover the

interest of the applicant is not a bonafide cause for condoning

delay. It is further contended that the applicant is having a legal

department in the Corporation and such legal department is not

expected to remain under an impression that if a co-defendant

challenges the impugned judgment and decree, that would

cover the interest of the present applicant. No other

submissions are made except the above.

5. I have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

advocates for the respective parties and also perused the

material placed on record.

6. It appears from the record that the only reason which has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/4844/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025

undefined

assigned in the application is an impression that the appeal

preferred by opponent No.4 herein would cover the interest of

the applicant. The explanation sounds unreasonable for the

reason that the applicant is a State Government controlled

Statutory Corporation having a Legal Department. When the

Corporation is having a full-fledged legal department, it is

expected that the legal department should function effectively.

When in any proceedings order is passed, such order is always

placed before the legal department for its scrutiny. The legal

department of the Corporation is not expected to remain under

a belief that when a co-defendant challenges a decree, it would

cover the interest of the Corporation. Such belief is not only

misconceived but creates question regarding the functioning of

the legal department of the applicant.

7. The law on limitation is that the Court should adopt a lenient

and justice oriented view while deciding an application for

condonation of delay. Though the length of delay is not the only

criteria for deciding an application for condonation of delay, but

the reasons and explanation which are pleaded by the litigant

for delay is vital criteria.








                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/4844/2024                                       ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined

8. In the case of Mool Chandra v. Union of India decided on

5.8.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos.8435-8436 of 2024 by the Division

Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which has been relied

upon by the learned advocate for the applicant. In paragraph

No.20 of the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

"20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned."

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the issue of

condonation of delay, has laid down a law that while examining

the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which

has to be propounded, will have to be examined and if the

cause of delay would fall within the four-corners of `sufficient

cause', irrespective of the length of delay, delay deserves to be

condoned. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that if the

cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay,

same would not be condoned.








                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/4844/2024                              ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025

                                                                                                          undefined

10. Reverting back to the present case, what has been transpired

from the application is that the decree passed in the Civil Suit is

directing all the defendants jointly and severally to pay an

amount of Rs.50/- lacs to the plaintiff with interest at a rate of

6% p.a. The impugned plea has been challenged by the Gujarat

Pollution Control Board, which runs under the State of Gujarat,

the applicant is also controlled by the State of Gujarat. When 2

different establishments controlled by the State of Gujarat are

aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the justice-

oriented view is required to be adopted. To balance an equity,

the applicant is saddled with a cost of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees

twenty five thousand only) for condoning delay.