Gujarat High Court
Lalitaben Navinbhai Gamit vs Shakil Bashir Kureshi on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5761/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5761 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 33419 of 2024
==========================================================
LALITABEN NAVINBHAI GAMIT & ORS.
Versus
SHAKIL BASHIR KURESHI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR.KRUTIK A PARIKH(7268) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking
condonation of delay of 1091 days caused in preferring the
appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated
02.09.2021 passed in M.A.C.P.No.28 of 2019.
2. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that a
detailed affidavit explaining the delay has been filed. He
further submitted that the applicants/claimants lost the sole
breadwinner of the family in the said vehicular accident. Due
to their poverty, the applicants could not prefer the appeal
within the prescribed time. It was only after the Insurance
Company deposited the awarded amount before the learned
Tribunal and 30% of the said amount was disbursed in their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5761/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
favour, that the applicants approached an advocate to seek
necessary advice for filing an appeal. In this process, a delay
of 1091 days occurred. He submitted that the delay is neither
intentional nor mala fide, but has occurred for the reasons
stated in the application and the supporting affidavit. He
further submitted that, if the delay is condoned, the applicants
shall not claim any interest on the enhanced compensation for
the period of delay, in the event the appeal for enhancement
is allowed.
3. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for parties and having regard to the
poverty of the applicants, who were unable to arrange the
requisite funds for preferring an appeal within the prescribed
period of limitation, I am of the considered opinion that the
said circumstances constitute a sufficient cause for condoning
the delay. It is a settled proposition of law that delay of any
length can be condoned, if it is satisfactorily explained. In the
present case, in my view, the applicants have sufficiently
explained the reasons for the delay.
4. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others,
AIR 1987 SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Court has laid down
the guiding principles for condonation of delay. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereunder:--
"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5761/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
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."
5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the present case and in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. [AIR
1987 SC 1353] and having regard to the grounds pressed
into service for condonation of delay, in my considered view,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5761/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
the present application deserves to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed, subject to the condition that the
claimants shall not be entitled for any interest on the
enhanced amount for the period of delay, if the appeal for
enhancement is allowed.
6. In view of the above, the present Civil Application
stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH
