Gujarat High Court
Sarpanch, Gadh Gram Panchayat vs Kiritsinh Chandansinh Rajput on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13195 of 2025
==========================================================
SARPANCH, GADH GRAM PANCHAYAT
Versus
KIRITSINH CHANDANSINH RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani for the
petitioner.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief.
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to admit and allow present
Special Civil Application;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 29-5-2025 in Civil Misc.
Application No. 16 of 2025 rendered by Ld. 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Palanpur, At. Banakantha, and thereby, further be pleased to
condone delay in filing of appeal before Ld. Sessions Court, Palanpur,
in the interest of justice;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to stay implementation and
execution of order dated 28-12-2018 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.
50 of 2017 by Ld. Trial Court at Palanpur, Dist. Banaskantha, till the
pending admission, hearing, and final disposal of this present petition;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
(D) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to grant such other and further
relief(s) as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case in the interest of justice."
2.1 As far as possible, parties will be referred as per their
original position in the suit before trial Court.
Facts of the case.
3. The present petitioner herein is Gadh Gram Panchayat,
happens to be defendant of Regular Civil Suit No. 50 of 2017
filed by the respondents herein - plaintiffs. The petitioner
represented through its Sarpanch.
3.1 The defendant duly participated in the suit proceedings
and after appreciating the evidence led by plaintiffs as no
oral or documentary evidence were submitted by defendant.
Although, defendant had cross-examined plaintiffs and their
witnesses.
3.2 The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated
28.12.2018 allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. As per
the decree, the plaintiff was declared to be owner of "Vada
land" in question and notices issued by the defendant Gram
Panchayat under Section 105 of the Gujarat Panchayats,
Act,1993 dated 16.09.2016 and 07.10.2017 quashed and set
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
aside being declared as false and illegal. Further, the
defendant as Panchayat is permanently prohibited not to
disturb the possession of the plaintiff qua suit land.
3.3 After about 6 years and 14 days, an appeal came to be
filed by the defendant before the District Court concerned
on 13.02.2025. As there was gross delay in filing such appeal,
the delay application being CMA No. 16 of 2025 came to be
filed.
3.4 After hearing the parties, the appellate Court
concerned vide its order dated 29.05.2025 rejected the delay
application. Hence the present writ application.
Submission of the petitioner- defendant
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Bachani would submit that
there is no gross negligence on the part of the petitioner-
defendant in filing the appeal after more than six years. It is
submitted that after change of body in the defendant - Gram
Panchayat, it was felt and decided to file appeal.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bachani would further submit that
the suit land would be only piece of open land available with
the Panchayat to be used for common purpose and if delay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
would not be condoned, it cause great injustice to the
defendant.
4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Bachani would further submit
that the appellate Court has taken very hyper approach
while deciding the impugned delay application, inasmuch as
it has not appreciated the fact that defendant being
Panchayat run by the body and at relevant point of time,
when decree was passed by the trial Court, if an appropriate
decision was not taken by the then body of the Panchayat,
any delay caused in filing the appeal requires to be condoned
by the Court.
4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Bachani would further submit
that as such there is no mala-fide intention on the part of the
defendant not to file appeal after period of limitation but
due to procedure to be undertaken by the defendant, it
cause delay in filing the appeal. It is respectfully submitted
that if delay would be condoned by this Court by imposing
any condition, no serious prejudice would cause to the
plaintiff, inasmuch as condonation of delay, the Court can
able to decide the lis between the parties on its merit.
4.4 In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr.
Bachani would refer and rely upon the decision of the Co-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Vs. Velshibhai Arjanbhai Patel (Deceased) passed in Special
Civil Application No. 6786 of 2024 dated 29.11.2024.
4.5 Making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.
Bachani would request this Court to entertain the present
writ application.
Point for determination
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
order impugned passed by the appellate Court is erroneous
perverse, arbitrary and contrary to the settle principle of law,
having not condoned the delay of 6 years and 14 days in filing
appeal by the defendant ?
Analysis
5. The facts which are narrated hereinabove are not in
dispute. It appears from bare reading of the judgment and
decree of trial Court placed before this Court that the suit
was contested by the defendant on merit. The evidences
were also led by the plaintiff on record of the suit. It further
appears that despite giving an opportunity, the defendant
did not think fit to file any documentary/ oral evidence on
record of the suit, thereby, its stage to lead evidence was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
closed on 12.09.2018. Nonetheless, the witness of plaintiff
was effectively cross-examined by the Lawyer of the
defendant.
5.1 After hearing the parties, the trial Court decreed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff on 28.12.2018. The operative
portion of such judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court would indicate that it was seen by the learned
advocates for the respective parties including the defendant.
So, in view of the aforesaid, it cannot be gainsaid that the
defendant was quite aware about passing of the judgment
by the trial Court on 28.12.2018.
5.2 The defendant having filed delay application tried to
explained such inordinate long delay of around six years in
filing appeal but not able to explain rather tried to make
false and incorrect statement. It can be noticed that in the
delay application, there are some factual incorrect
statement made, which can discernible as under.
(i) In last portion of para-3 of the delay application, it is so
mentioned that decree was illegal and passed ex-parte.
(ii) In para-4 of the delay application stated that the
judgment dated 28.12.2018 passed by the trial Court was not
known to the appellant (defendant) and then-after, since
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
2019 to 2021 (Covid-19) delay occurred.
5.3 According to me, both these facts so mentioned in the
delay application are not only factually incorrect but also
false statement made by the Sarpanch of Gadh Gram
Panchayat on affidavit. This Court can call upon the
petitioner, happens to be Sarpanch of Gadh Gram Panchayat
for filing such false and incorrect affidavit while submitting
delay application. But, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances, this Court would not like to do so.
Nonetheless, the facts remains that there was a false
averments made by the petitioner in its delay application in
jealous to get delay condoned by the appellate Court, when
noticed by this Court, requires to be deprecated by the this
Court.
5.4 At this stage, I would like to refer and rely upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlik
Jalam Patil (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Executive Engineer, Jagaon
Medium Project and another reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448,
more particularly in Para- 11, 12, 14, 30 & 31.
"11. Whether the respondent made incorrect statement in the
application seeking condonation of delay? There is no dispute
whatsoever that the respondent being the beneficiary of the acquisition
has been duly impleaded as a party respondent in the reference cases
as is required in law. It not only appeared in the matter through a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
properly instructed counsel but also filed its written statement opposing
the claim for enhancement of compensation but did not choose to lead
any evidence whatsoever. In the application filed in the High Court the
plea taken by the respondent is as under:
"The applicant submits that, although the applicant being
Acquiring Body, was arrayed as opponent in the said
reference, the opponent no. 4 herein (Original Opponent
No. 1) S.L.A.O. or his subordinate contested the said
reference by filing written statement. Therefore, this
applicant was unaware about the stand taken by S.L.A.O.
as well as the impugned judgment and award."
This averment in the application on the face of it is totally incorrect.
12. The Law & Judiciary Department as early as on 13.4.2000 i.e. to
say within the period of 15 days from the date of the award of the
Reference Court communicated its decision to acquiesce in the
decision of the Reference Court and communicated the same to all the
concerned including the beneficiary of the acquisition. It is not the case
that the Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication.
Having received the said communication the respondent did not act in
the matter and initiated any steps for filing the appeals if it was really
aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court. There is no doubt
whatsoever in our mind that the respondent made totally incorrect
statement in the application filed in the High Court. We express our
reservation as to the manner in which a public authority conducted
itself in its anxiety to somehow get the relief from the court. In our
considered opinion incorrect statement made in the application
seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application
without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the
application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party
taking a false stand to get rid of the bar of limitation should not be
encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his part by
condoning delay. [See: (1993)1SCC 572].
xxxxxxxxx
14. It is true that the power to condone the delay rests with the court
in which the application was filed beyond time and decide whether
there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay and ordinarily the
superior court may not interfere with such discretion even if some error
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
is to be found in the discretion so exercised by the court but where
there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay but the delay was
condoned, it is a case of discretion not being exercised judicially and
the order becomes vulnerable and susceptible for its correction by the
superior court. The High Court having found that the respondent in its
application made incorrect submission that it had no knowledge of the
award passed by the Reference Court ought to have refused to
exercise its discretion. The High Court exercised its discretion on
wrong principles. In that view of the matter we cannot sustain the
exercise of discretion in the manner done by the High Court.
xxxxxxxx
30. Public interest undoubtedly is a paramount consideration in
exercising the courts discretion wherever conferred upon it by the
relevant statutes. Pursuing stale claims and multiplicity of proceedings
in no manner sub-serves public interest. Prompt and timely payment of
compensation to the land loosers facilitating their rehabilitation
/resettlement is equally an integral part of public policy. Public interest
demands that the State or the beneficiary of acquisition, as the case
may be, should not be allowed to indulge in any act to unsettle the
settled legal rights accrued in law by resorting to avoidable litigation
unless the claimants are guilty of deriving benefit which otherwise not
entitled in law in any fraudulent manner. One should not forget the
basic fact that what is acquired is not the land but the livelihood of the
land loosers. These public interest parameters ought to be kept in
mind by the courts while exercising the discretion dealing with the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Dragging the
land loosers to courts of law years after the termination of legal
proceedings would not serve any public interest. Settled rights cannot
be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there
being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of
involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest.
31. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the
applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain
amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for
Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a
different period to the government in filing appeals or applications as
such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out
a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the
officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any
such facts are pleaded or proved they cannot be excluded from
consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the
present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble
attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to
suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain
the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper
foundation in the pleadings.
(emphasis supplied)
5.5 Thus, in view of this ground alone, the delay in filing
appeal by the petitioner requires to be rejected.
5.6 Even otherwise, there is no sufficient cause made out
by the petitioner as defendant in its delay application,
inasmuch as there is no explanation worth coming from the
defendant in its delay application that what was done by
defendant between 20.12.2018 till filing of appeal in the
year 2025.
5.7 It is true that length of delay would not be a factor for
not condoning the delay. Nevertheless, when delay is too
long and inordinate, the Court is supposed to see the
explanation coming forth from the applicant side, if found
satisfactory and bonafide, surely the Court can condone the
delay in appropriate case.
5.8 So far as the present case is concerned, no such case is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
made out by the defendant in its delay application. Further,
it appears from the reading of the delay application, that
subsequent body who took charge of Gram Panchayat
thought it fit to challenge impugned judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court. It also needs to mention that there
was time gap of six years between decree of trial Court and
filing of appeal but nothing came on record that when old
body got changed and new one took over charge. The
conduct of the defendant does not inspire any confidence,
inasmuch as there are misleading, false and incorrect
statement made in the delay application as observed above.
6.0 As such, the issue germane in the present delay
application could be squarely covered by the following
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein now, it is well
settled legal position of law that if there is gross negligence,
inordinate delay, dilatory tactics used to delay the litigation
without just cause, mala-fide etc., the Court should not take
liberal approach while adjudicating the delay condonation
application.
6.1 At this stage, it is apt to first 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:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
"[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)
6.2 It is also 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
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).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
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)
6.3 It is worth 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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
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)
6.4 It is not out of place to refer the pertinent observation
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:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
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)
6.5 Even to end the list of such authority, 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 whenever 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. Even, it held that Court should not look
at merit of the matter while adjudicating delay application
unless sufficient cause made out. 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
limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
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)
7. If the ratio of the aforesaid several decisions applied to
the case on hand, it cannot be said that any error much less
any gross error of law committed by the appellate Court
while rejecting the delay application. On the contrary, I am in
complete agreement with the view taken by the appellate
Court while rejecting the delay application, as I am also of
the view that there is no sufficient cause made out by the
petitioner in its delay application. As such, I am not at all
impressed by any of arguments so far made by learned
advocate Mr. Bachani.
8. Lastly, the judgment cited by the learned advocate Mr.
Bachani for the petitioner in the case of Bharti Airtel (supra)
would not help to his argument and so also case of the
petitioner, inasmuch as it appears that the case before the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the applicant was not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
served with notice of suit and as such the applicant as
petitioner of that case was not aware about passing of the
judgment and decree in the suit preferred by the
respondent, which is not the case on hand.
8.1 It would also require to be observed that while passing
the judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case Bharti Airtel (supra) also held thus :-
"17. Thus, it is evident that the sufficient cause means that the party
should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of
bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or
it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted deliberately" or
"remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each
case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to
exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises
discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy
the Court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from
prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is
furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of
delay."
(emphasis supplied)
9. So, when the Court found the act of applicant grossly
negligent, there was no due diligence on part of applicant,
and so it lacks of bona-fide, it would not constitute sufficient
cause. In such situation, the Court should not condone the
delay by taking liberal approach.
9.1 In the present case, this Court already held hereinabove
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13195/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
that there was gross negligence, no due diligence, lack of
bona-fide having made incorrect/false statement by
defendant while filing appeal with delay more than six years,
thus, it would not constitute any sufficient cause. If it be so,
with imposition of any condition upon defendant-petitioner,
this Court also would not like to condone such huge
unexplained and inordinate delay of more than six years in
filing regular appeal.
Conclusion
10. In view of the aforesaid observations, discussions and
reasons, I do not find any merit in the present writ
application, requires to rejected, which is hereby rejected.
No order as to cost.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
