Gujarat High Court
Rajeshbhai Jayrambhai Gamit vs Filipbhai Jayrambhai Gamit (Deceased) on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5847/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5847 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34213 of 2024
==========================================================
RAJESHBHAI JAYRAMBHAI GAMIT & ANR.
Versus
FILIPBHAI JAYRAMBHAI GAMIT (DECEASED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR BHAVESH J PATEL(6801) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay of 1053
days in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment
and award dated 13.10.2021, passed in MACP No. 54 of 2019.
2. Heard Learned Advocates for the parties.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that the
impugned judgment and award was passed by the Learned
Tribunal on 13.10.2021. He further submitted that thereafter the
certified copy of the impugned judgment and award was sought
for on 17.11.2021 and the same was prepared on 24.11.2021,
which was received on 24.11.2024. He further submitted that
the applicant could not prefer the appeal within a period of
limitation owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. He further
submitted that the applicants have lost three family members in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5847/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
the said accident and all the family members were in trauma. He
further submitted that owing to the financial crisis and COVID-
19 pandemic, the appeal could not be preferred within a period
of limitation. Therefore, a delay of 1053 days has occasioned in
preferring the appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf
of the insurance company, opposed the application on the
ground that the delay has not been sufficiently explained.
Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Advocates for
the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the entire country
was paralyzed by the wave of COVID-19 pandemic and even the
period of limitation was dispensed with by the direction of the
Honorable Supreme Court in Re Cognizance for extension of
Limitation, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117. Further, it is not in
dispute that the applicants have lost three family members in
the said accident. Thus, considering the ground of pandemic of
COVID and the financial crisis faced by the applicants owing to
the death of three family members in the accident, in my
considered view, is sufficient cause to condone the delay.
6. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji
& Ors. [AIR 1987 SC 1353] , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down the guidelines to consider the application
for condonation of delay and the same are reproduced
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5847/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
hereinunder:-
"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.
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."
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra), it would be in
the interest of justice if the delay is condoned subject to the
condition that the applicant shall not be entitled for interest for
the delayed period, in the eventuality, if the appeal for
enhancement is allowed.
8. Accordingly, in view of the above direction, the application
deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the delay is condoned.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
