Gujarat High Court
Pratapbhai Babubhai Parmar vs Ashwinkumar Pravinsinh Rathod on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4788/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4788 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28437 of 2025
==========================================================
PRATAPBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
ASHWINKUMAR PRAVINSINH RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking
condonation of delay of 495 days in preferring the cross objections
against the impugned and award dated 12.01.2023 passed by the
learned Tribunal in MACP No.28/2022.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that after receiving
the knowledge of the notice of the First Appeal No.4452/2023 on
30.01.2024, the applicant went to the office of the dealing advocate for
signing the vakalatnama on 24.02.2024 and thereafter, the concerned
advocate sent the papers to the learned advocate at High Court on
18.06.2024, the said advocate opined to file the cross objections for
enhancement on 30.06.2024. Thereafter, the applicant has arranged the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4788/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
finance for paying the court fee and other expenses involved in filing of
the cross objections and he could arrange the finance for the aforesaid
expenses on 30.07.2025 and thereafter, the present cross objections
have been preferred. It is further submitted that the applicants are ready
and willing to pay the interest for the entire delay period on the
enhanced amount, if any, allowed in cross objections.
4. Ms. Vrunda Joshi, learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of
Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for the respondent,
vehemently opposed the application on the ground that there is an
inordinate delay. She further submitted that no plausible ground has
been pressed into service for condoning the delay.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having
considered the material on record, it is evident that the Insurance
Company has already preferred the appeal being the First Appeal
No.4793/2023. The applicant could not file the cross objections in the
said appeal owing to the poverty. In my considered view, the delay has
been sufficiently explained as narrated in Paragraph nos.1 to 4 of the
application. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer the judgment
of the 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 Supreme Court has laid
down the following criteria for condoning the delay. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4788/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
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."
6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case,
it would be just and proper if the delay is condoned subject to the waiver
of interest for the delayed period. The applicant shall not be entitled for
the interest of delayed period on enhanced compensation, in the
eventuality if the cross objections are allowed. The delay is condoned.
No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
