Gujarat High Court
Sureshkumar Bhavanishankar Raval vs Manish Dhebarbhai Patel on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13512 of 2024
=============================================
SURESHKUMAR BHAVANISHANKAR RAVAL & ANR.
Versus
MANISH DHEBARBHAI PATEL
=============================================
Appearance:
MS ADITI P SHETH(12210) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR .B A PATEL(5281) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
:
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.
Roshni Prajapati for learned advocate Mr. B.A. Patel waives
service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani with learned
advocate Ms. Krisha M. Bhaimani for the applicants and
learned advocate Ms. Roshni Prajapati for learned advocate
Mr. B.A. Patel for the respondent.
2.1 With the consent of learned advocates of respective
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. As far as
possible, parties will be referred as per their original position
in the suit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
3. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief :
"(A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order of the 5th
Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam dated
08.02.2024 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2023
(Annexure-A), to condone the delay in filing Regular Civil Appeal
No.10 of 2023;
(B) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent from selling,
leasing, mortgaging, transferring or dealing with in any manner or
creating encumbrances in any manner over land bearing New Block
No. 412, Old Block No. 1024, Old Survey No. 578, Old Khata No.1440,
New Khata No.1540 being old tenure agricultural land admeasuring 2-
43-37 He-Are-Sq.mts at village: Sitapur, Tal: Mandal, Dist:
Ahmedabad;
(C) ad-interim relief in terms of Paras (A) and (B);
(D) for such other and further reliefs as the circumstances may
require."
Facts of the case
4. The petitioners herein were original defendants of
Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 2017 instituted by the
respondents herein seeking specific performance of
registered agreement to sell executed between plaintiff and
defendant No.1 on 01.03.2012. After hearing the parties, the
suit got decreed in favour of plaintiff on 10.06.2019
whereby, the trial Court vides its judgement and decree
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
dated 10.06.2019, directed the defendant No.1 to execute
sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff pursuance to the
aforesaid agreement to sell. It further passed an order
whereby, quashed and set aside registered sale-deed dated
18.02.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.2 in regards to the suit land in question.
4.1 Thereafter, the plaintiff appears to have filed an
execution application No. 4 of 2019 before the Court
concerned, wherein after due process, through the Court
Commissioner, registered sale-deed was executed in favour
of the plaintiff in relation to suit land in question.
4.2 After having come to know about such facts, after
about three years, defendants chosen to prefer an appeal
before the appellate Court, seeking condonation of delay of
such period in filing the appeal.
4.3 After hearing the parties, the appellate Court i.e. 5 th
Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam
vide its order dated 08.02.2024 passed in CMA No. 20 of
2023, rejected the delay application. Such order passed by
the appellate Court is impugned in the present writ
application.
Submission of the petitioners - defendants
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani assisted by learned
advocate Ms. Krisha M. Bhaimani for the defendants would
submit that the appellate Court having not appreciated the
facts and circumstances of the present case and taking very
hyper technical approach in rejecting the delay application
which would cause great hardship and injustice to the
defendants.
5.1 Learned advocate Ms. Jani would further submit that a
liberal approach requires to be adopted by the appellate
Court while adjudicating the delay application and having not
done so, committed jurisdictional error, requires to be
corrected by this Court while exercising its power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5.2 It is respectfully submitted that there would not be any
harm/ prejudice cause to the other side, if delay could have
been condoned by the appellate Court, inasmuch as the
Court can decide the lis between the parties on its merit.
5.3 Learned advocate Ms. Jani would further submit that
mere satisfying the decree in the form of registration of a
sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff would not ipso facto a
ground of rejecting delay application. It is submitted that
when there is no mala-fide intention on the part of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
applicants -petitioners herein not to file any appeal in time,
such delay ought to have been condoned in the interest of
justice.
5.4 Lastly, Learned advocate Ms. Jani would humbly submit
that post judgment / decree passed by the trial Court, in the
year 2020, entire world confronted with unprecedented
situation of Covid-19 pandemic and that was reason
whereby, the defendants were not in a position to prosecute
the legal remedy available to them, so much so that during
the course of trial, talks of settlements between the parties
were also going on but ultimately it was not fruitful.
5.5 Making the above submission, learned advocate Ms.
Jani would request this Court to condone the delay in the
interest of justice and if so directed, the petitioners-
defendants are ready and willing to compensate the other
side by paying cost. Thus, requested this Court to allow the
present writ application.
Submission of the respondent - plaintiff
6. Learned advocate Ms. Roshni Prajapati for learned
advocate Mr. B.A. Patel would vehemently opposed the
present writ application contending inter-alia that there is no
error much less any gross error and or no jurisdictional error
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
committed by the appellate Court while rejecting the
impugned application. It is respectfully submitted that this
Court should not interfere with the well-reasoned order
passed by the appellate Court, while exercising its power
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6.1 Learned advocate Ms. Roshni Prajapati would further
submit that the judgment and decree sought to be
challenged in appeal was passed in the year 2019, whereas
the appeal came to be filed in the year 2023, that too after
completion of the execution proceedings, inasmuch as the
registration of sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff completed
at the instance of Executing Court. It is submitted that there
was gross delay in filing appeal without disclosing any
sufficient cause.
6.2 Learned advocate Ms. Roshni Prajapati would further
submit that Once the execution proceeding was initiated,
defendants were well aware of the passing of the judgment
and decree in question, and if they intended to challenge the
same, they could have done so within a reasonable time. It is
submitted that when defendants allowed to kill time, later
on cannot allow to say that delay was bonafide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
6.3 Learned advocate Ms. Roshni Prajapati would
respectfully submit that when the petitioners remain
indolent for years together and allowed time to pass, such an
act of petitioners would be unpardonable and this Court
should not condoned such huge delay in a casual manner
whereby, it cause serious prejudice to the interest of the
respondents- plaintiff, now having title in his favour by virtue
of registered sale-deed.
6.4 Lastly, learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would submit
that as per settled legal position of law that whenever the
Court found that the applicant seeking condonation of delay
is either negligent, indolent, remain silent for long period
without reason and or any laches found on his/her part, no
leniency to be shown to such litigant and at least this Court,
should not interfere with the order of rejecting such delay
application, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction.
6.5 Making the above submission, learned advocate Ms.
Prajapati would request this Court to reject the present writ
application.
7. No other and further submissions are made being
made by any of learned advocates.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
Analysis
8. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in
dispute. It remain undisputed fact as also observed by the
appellate Court while rejecting the delay application, that at
the time of pronouncement of judgment and decree by the
trial Court on 10.06.2019, the Advocate engaged by the
defendants have seen the judgment and decree as his
endorsement noticed. It would thus, presumed and no
reason to doubt, at least in the mind of prudent, that when
Advocate engaged by the defendants have seen judgment
and decree, it would be in the knowledge of the defendants
having communicated. Otherwise, also, it is not the case of
defendants that they were not informed by their Lawyer
about passing of the judgement and decree by the trial
Court.
9. It also further requires to be noticed that after passing
of such decree, the execution application was also filed in
the year 2019 itself (prior to COVID-19 era), and as such, it is
not the case of the petitioners-defendants that they were
not served with any notice in the execution proceedings. So,
also not stated that no other notice received from Executing
Court before registration of sale deed by the Court
Commissioner, appointed at the instance / order of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
Executing Court. This fact could easily established on the
record by defendants if really not received any notice in
execution. So, silence of petitioners-defendants in this
regards, speaks volume about their indolent conduct.
10. Once the execution was allowed to proceed and
culminated into registration of sale-deed, nothing survives in
the execution proceeding. All these acts of defendants
would surely constitute gross negligence, indolent behaviour
and laches on their part which is not condonable act,
inasmcuh as it would not constitute sufficient cause.
11. There is a gross inordinate delay of more than three
years in filing appeal and no sufficient cause made out by the
defendants in their impugned delay application.
12. At this stage, it is apt to rely upon the decision of
Honourable Supreme Court of India in a case of Rajneesh
Kumar & Anr V/S Ved Prakash reported in 2024 (14) SCALE
406 wherein held as under:
"[10] It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of
the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial Court.
We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the
litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in
attending the proceedings before the Court. Even if we assume for a
moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by
itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the
litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court
initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted
to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby
disown him at any time and seek relief.
[12] As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of
this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State
Insurance Corporation, 1971 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as
under:-
"The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that
actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to
assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral
to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him;
secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a
person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing
them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without
asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the
basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non
dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who
are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object
of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his
right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage
and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims."
(Emphasis supplied)
12.1 It is apposite to refer to and rely upon a recent
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.,
reported in 2024 (4) Scale 759, wherein, after revisiting the
law on the aspect of condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:
"10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a
Court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to
be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @
Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 384). The
discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any
reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay (See
P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556).
Thus, it is apparent that the words 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the
Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction, when no
negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the
litigant (See Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.,
(2013) 14 SCC 81). The principles which are to be kept in mind for
condonation of delay were succinctly summarised by this Court in
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649, and are reproduced as under:
"21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-
pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of
delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are
obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause"
should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose
regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and
are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical
considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate
causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the
counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking
condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof
should not affect public justice and cause public mischief
because the Courts are required to be vigilant so that in the
ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate
the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a
totally unfettered free play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a
delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be
attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach
whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating
to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into
consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the
Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in
respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a
total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted, or the grounds
urged in the application are fanciful, the Courts should be
vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such
a litigation."
(Emphasis supplied)
12.2 It is also profitable to refer to and rely upon ratio
laid down by recent past decision of Honourable Supreme
Court of India in a case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) BY
L RS & ORS V/S Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in
2024 INSC 286 : 2024 (4) SCR 241 : 2024 (4) Scale 846
wherein after referring to its previous decisions, summarized
the case law on the issue of limitation vis-a-vis condonation
of delay in context of "sufficient cause". It has been so
observed and held as under.
"[26] On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as
aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an
end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right
itself;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a
long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of
time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach,
justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept
in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of
limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay
if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is
discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient
cause is established for various factors such as, where there is
inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not
mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the Court is
not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning
the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the
delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."
(Emphasis supplied)
12.3 It is also profitable to rely upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj
and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in
2013 (14) SCC 81 wherein it is held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that
where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the
applicant has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient
cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which
prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case a party
is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts
and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or
remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the
delay. No Court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate
delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be
decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard
to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to
prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay
without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to
passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it
tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
(Emphasis supplied)
12.4 Last but not least, recently also, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (DEAD) By Lrs Vs.
Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. reported In 2025 INSC
1104 in clear terms held that where there is delay/laches on
the part of the applicant in not prosecuting the legal remedy,
in the absence of any sufficient cause made out by the
applicant, the Court should not condone the delay while
exercising its power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963. In the case of Shivamma (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held thus:-
"258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter which the Court
must take into consideration while considering whether the delay
should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the
respondents, it appears that they want to fix their own period of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has
prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has
lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of
his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-
deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, it cannot
be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be
preferred as against the technical considerations. While
considering the plea for condonation of delay, the Court must not
start with the merits of the main matter. The Court owes a duty to
first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party
seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by
the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced
that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the
purpose of condoning the delay."
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforementioned decisions, if applied to the facts
of the present case on hand, it would lead to only one
conclusion that defendants having found grossly negligent in
prosecuting their legal remedy, in that circumstances, the
delay application could not have been allowed which is
correctly not allowed by the appellate Court.
14. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well
as position of law stand as on date, I am unable to agree with
any of the submissions so made by the learned advocate for
the petitioners and as such I am in complete agreement with
the view taken by the appellate Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13512/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
15. Lastly, this Court, while exercising powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with
every order passed by the trial Court at a drop of the hat. Its
now settled that merely because a second view is possible, it
would not be ground to interfere. As such, there is no
possibility of taking another view than taken by appellate
Court. [See : Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder vs. Rahul
Kumar Agarwal, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 374 (Para 6 and
7) and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in
(2022) 4 SCC 181 (Para 15 and 16)].
Conclusion
16. In view of the foregoing discussions, observations, and
reasons, the present writ application is bereft of merit and
requires to be rejected, which is hereby rejected.
17. The impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the 5 th
Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam
in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.20 of 2023 is hereby
confirmed.
18. Rule is hereby discharged. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
