Gujarat High Court
D.G.P. And I.G.P. Owner Of Vehicle vs Lh Of Decd Rashanbhai Somajibhai Ninama on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4980/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4980
of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 28848 of 2025
==========================================================
D.G.P. AND I.G.P. OWNER OF VEHICLE
Versus
LH OF DECD RASHANBHAI SOMAJIBHAI NINAMA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HIMANI SHAH AGP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking
condonation of delay of 582 days caused in preferring the appeal
against the impugned judgment and award.
2. Heard learned AGP for the applicant.
3. Learned AGP for the applicant submitted that the delay of
582 has occasioned owing to the administrative reasons. She
further submitted that the date wise delay has been narrated in
paragraph-2 to 22 of the application. She further submitted the
delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned
owing to the reasons as stated in the application.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned AGP and
having gone through the content of the application, it appears
prima facie that the date wise delay has been sufficiently
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4980/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
explained in the application. It is settled proposition of law that
the delay of any length can be condoned if it is sufficiently
explained and plausible reasons has been assigned for the same.
5. 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
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."
6. Having considered the ground pressed into service and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra), the present
application deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the delay is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4980/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
condoned. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
CDP
