Gujarat High Court
Narbahadur Nandkishor Prasad vs Jaheralia A Shaikh & 2 on 2 November, 2015
Author: S.H.Vora
Bench: S.H.Vora
C/CA/11962/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 11962 of
2015
In
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 3003 of 2015
In
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 1512 of 2015
In
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7572 of 2012
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2016 of 2012
==========================================================
NARBAHADUR NANDKISHOR PRASAD....Applicant(s)
Versus
JAHERALIA A SHAIKH & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA
Date : 02/11/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act" for brevity) has been preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 19 days caused in preferring Misc. Civil Application for restoration.
2. Reasons for delay caused in preferring application for restoration are narrated in paras 3 and 4 of the present application.
Page 1 of 2HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Nov 03 02:46:03 IST 2015 C/CA/11962/2015 ORDER
3. The words, "Sufficient cause for not making application within the period of limitation" should be applied in a reasonable and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the type of the case. The expression "sufficient cause" in section 5 of the Act needs liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when the delay is not on account of any negligence or inaction or want of bona fide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant. In nutshell, the decisive factor for condonation of delay is not length of delay but sufficiency and satisfactory explanation. Since there is nothing on record so as to infer inaction or want of bona fide that can be attributed to the applicant, the applicant cannot be non-suited at threshold and thus, cannot be deprived of substantial justice which has been made available to the applicant by way of application. In order to advance substantial justice to the applicant and as the explanation for delay does not smack mala fide, the delay caused in preferring application for restoration is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
4. Registry is directed to list Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.3003 of 2015 for hearing on 04.11.2015 after giving regular number.
(S.H.VORA, J.) Hitesh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Nov 03 02:46:03 IST 2015