Gujarat High Court
Hirabhai Mansurbhai Dangar vs Bala Babubhai Bhurabhai on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1018/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1018 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4360 of 2025
==========================================================
HIRABHAI MANSURBHAI DANGAR & ANR.
Versus
BALA BABUBHAI BHURABHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate for the parties.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the delay of
1019 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal against the
impugned judgment and award dated 24.01.2022 passed in MACP
No.290/2017 by the learned Tribunal, Jamnagar. He further submitted
that the dealing advocate conveyed the applicant regarding
pronouncement of the judgment on 18.04.2022. Thereafter on
12.08.2023, the applicant approached the advocate, who was practicing
at Rajkot, advised him to prefer the appeal. Upon receipt of such
advice, the applicant went to the dealing advocate on 24.08.2023 for
signing vakalatnama. The said advocate apprised him regarding the
expenses of Court fee and other expenses involved in preferring the
appeal. Thereafter, the certified copies of the judgment and award was
applied on 28.08.2023, which was received on 11.09.2023. Thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1018/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
the applicant has arranged the necessary Court fee on 06.11.2023 and
he sent the necessary papers to the learned advocate practicing in the
High Court for filing of appeal on 24.11.2023. On 30.11.2023, the
learned advocate has demanded the certified copies of the judgment
and award, as the dealing advocate sent the xerox copy due to some
oversight. Thereafter, the certified copies were sent on 06/11/2024 to
the learned advocate practicing at High Court. The learned advocate
sent the affidavit for condonation of delay on 24.11.2024 and thereafter,
the present appeal was filed on 06.02.2025 and hence, the delay of
1019 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal. 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 interest for the
entire delayed period, on enhanced amount of compensation, if the
appeal is allowed.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Dhanesh Desai, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2-insurance company,
vehemently opposed the application. He submitted that the delay has
not been sufficiently explained. He further submitted that mere
undertaking for waiver of interest cannot be a sufficient ground for
condoning the delay. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the respondent no.2-insurance company relied upon the order dated
01/05/2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Civil Application (for
condonation of delay) No.617/2025 in First Appeal No.2364/2025.
Placing the reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for
the respondent no.2, submitted that in view of ratio of the judgment, the
present application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1018/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
parties and having regard to the ground pressed into service, it appears
that the applicant has explained the overall delay. It is settled
proposition of law that the delay of each and every day is not required to
be explained. It is also settled law that the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 is the
beneficial piece of legislation and the technicalities should not come in
the way of awarding the just compensation to the claimants. So far as
the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance
company is concerned, that the applicant could not explain the delay
and the same is not sustainable in view of the contents of the
application as that applicant has explained the delay date wise i.e. when
he gained the knowledge of passing of award, when he approached the
advocate, when he got the advice from the advocate, when he visited
the office of advocate, when he received the certified copies, when he
forwarded the record to the advocate, when he signed vakalatnama,
when he sent the certified copies to the advocate, when he affirmed the
affidavit for condonation of delay and when he arranged the funds
requisites for filing appeal. Considering these averments in the
application, in my considered view, would constitute sufficient cause to
condone the delay. It is also settled proposition of law that while dealing
with the application for condonation of delay, the Court must take a
liberal approach and the substantial justice should not be denied on
technicalities. It is also settled proposition of law that the Courts are
respected to decide the matter on merits rather than to dismiss the
matter on technicalities. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Collector
Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others,
reported in AIR (1987) SC 1353, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has laid down the following guidelines for considering the application for
condonation of delay and the same are read as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1018/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
"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."
5. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land
Acquisition, Anantnag (supra), I am of the considered view that the
present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the delay is
condoned subject to the condition that the claimants shall not be entitled
for the interest, on the enhanced amount of compensation for the
delayed period, if 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
