Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Thakor Virsangji Sonaji on 28 September, 2021
Author: A. C. Joshi
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/CA/2788/2019 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2788 of 2019
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27057 of 2019
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
THAKOR VIRSANGJI SONAJI & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R)(71) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 28/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Esha Bhavsar with learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the applicant.
2. This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 183 days caused in filing the First Appeal.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Esha Bhavsar with learned advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the applicant requests to condone the delay of 183 days in filing the First Appeal, as in the cognate matter ie. Civil Application No. 2792 of 2019 in First Appeal no. 27065 of 2019 the delay of 183 days is condoned.
4. Having heard the the arguments advanced by learned Advocate for the Applicant, there is no doubt that every case is required to be decided on merits rather than on technicality. That, taking into consideration the delay of 183 days has been condoned in the cognate matter i.e. Civil Application No. 2792 of 2019 in First Appeal no. 27065 of 2019. Further, the delay is of Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:06:55 IST 2022 C/CA/2788/2019 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2021 183 days and, as per catena of judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, every matter is required to be decided on merits and such technicality may not come in the way. Therefore, if delay is condoned, the same would meet the ends of justice. The prime purpose for which Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted so as to enable the Court to do substantial justice and that is the prime reason why very elastic expression and sufficient cause is employed therein so as to sub-serve the ends of justice.
5. This Court has considered the judgment passed by the co- ordinate bench reported in 2017 Law Suit (Guj) 1947 in the case of Mafatlal Apparels v. Akbarbhai Ganibhai Saiyed & Ors. wherein it is observed as under:
"As far as the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dave the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case since in the reference, the case of the employees was being represented by Union leader and he informed the employees to remain present only when called for. They were never aware about dismissal of the reference and where never informed that the reference was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rajesh Pukhraj Chauhan v. Sinter Plast Containers and another has held that it is trite that a litigant is permitted to litigate for his rights by having a decision from the Court of law on merits, rather than he is ousted on technical ground. A liberal approach is not out of place."
6. Therefore, the Application deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. Delay is condoned.
Rule is made absolute.
(A. C. JOSHI,J) prk Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 19:06:55 IST 2022