Gujarat High Court
Arifbhai Kadarbhai Kalva (Died On ... vs Mukeshbhai Dineshbhai Makwana on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4011 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9934 of 2025
==========================================================
ARIFBHAI KADARBHAI KALVA (DIED ON 25-03-2025) & ORS.
Versus
MUKESHBHAI DINESHBHAI MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR NIKUL K SONI(5122) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RANCHHOD N JADAV(10318) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the delay of 891
days has occasioned in preferring the appeal against the impugned
judgment and award dated 17.09.2022 passed in MACP No.1/2019 by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He further submitted that
owing to the financial hardship, death of applicant no.1, lack of legal
awareness and paucity of resources, the appeal could not be preferred
within the period of limitation. He further submitted that owing to the
poverty, the applicant has also made the effort to secure the legal aid
and accordingly approached the legal service authority. He further
submitted that that though the 1/3rd of the awarded amount was
released in favor of the applicant but in the treatment of applicant no.1,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
the sufficient amount was spent and therefore, the 1/3rd amount of the
compensation which came to be disbursed in favour of the applicant
was spent in the treatment of the applicant no.1. He further submitted
that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned
owing to the reasons stated in the application. He further submitted that
the applicant undertakes to waive the entire interest for the delayed
period on the enhanced amount of compensation, in case, the appeal is
allowed.
3. Mr. Nikul K. Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.1, submitted that the delay has not been properly
explained therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Dakshesh B. Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.2,
submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the appropriate order may be passed.
5. Mr. Nagraj Khachar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent no.3, submitted that considering the period of delay, the
appropriate order may be passed.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and having regard to the fact that the appeal could not be
preferred within the period of limitation owing to the financial hardship,
death of applicant no.1 and lack of legal knowledge and resources, in
my considered view, constitute a sufficient cause to condone the delay.
It is settled preposition of law that the delay of any length can be
condoned, if it is properly explained. At this juncture, it would be
profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst.
Katiji and Others, reported in AIR (1987) SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has observed as under:-
"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. Thus, having considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, I am
of the considered view that the present application deserves to be
allowed subject to the condition that the claimant shall not claim any
interest, on the enhanced amount of compensation for the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4011/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
delayed period, in case, the appeal for enhancement is allowed. In view
of the above, the present application stands allowed. No order as to
costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
