Gujarat High Court
Kapilaben W/O Shankarbhai Desaibhai ... vs Jani Harendrakumar Chimanbhai on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9702 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KAPILABEN W/O SHANKARBHAI DESAIBHAI RATHODIYA & ORS.
Versus
JANI HARENDRAKUMAR CHIMANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
Mr.TUSHAR S RAWAT(17260) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 17/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Jigar Raval with learned Advocate Mr.Tushar S. Rawat for the petitioners.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and or any other appropriate writ order or direction for quashing and setting Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Ld. 3rd Add.
Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below the application for condonation of delay in an application for restoration i.e. CMA no. 154/2024 and be further pleased to allow the application for condonation of delay filed by the Petitioners at Annexure-D. (C) Pending hearing and till final disposal of this Petition Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the order dated 05.04.2025 Annexure-D passed by the Ld. 3rd Add. Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below the application for condonation of delay in an Application for Restoration i.e. CMA/154/2024. (D) Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice."
3. As far as possible, the parties will be referred to as per their original positions before the Trial Court.
4. The short facts:
4.1. The petitioners herein are original plaintiffs who instituted Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2011 through their power of attorney against the respondents herein. The suit was filed seeking declaration and injunction to the effect that by virtue of alleged Will of the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favour of the respondents-defendants, thereby a revenue entry dated 5th May, 1997 mutated in their favour would not entitle the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined relation to the suit land in question and so also questioned such revenue entry.
4.2. The suit came to be dismissed for default on 23rd January, 2017. The restoration application came to be filed by the plaintiffs only in the month of May 2024, thereby, there was a delay of about 7 years and 6 months in filing such restoration application. The plaintiffs appear to have filed delay application which came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide its order dated 5th April, 2025, which is impugned in the present writ application.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS:
5.1. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Trial court has committed serious error of law while rejecting the impugned delay application, inasmuch as a very hyper-technical approach was taken by the Trial Court while adjudicating the delay application. 5.2. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval would submit that the petitioners are coming from humble background having no knowledge about the procedure of law and so also not literate and as such, petitioner No.2 got paralyzed, considering the aforesaid background of facts, the delay in filing the restoration application ought to have been condoned by the Trial Court.
Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 5.3. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval would submit that though the suit was filed by the petitioners, but it was filed through their power of attorney and as such, the petitioners were not aware about even the suit number which they came to know only in the year 2023 when the respondents have instituted revenue proceedings by raising objection in one of the revenue proceedings in the year 2023.
5.4. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval would further submit that the petitioners have obtained certified copy of order of dismissing the suit on 29th August, 2023, although filed restoration application in the month of May 2024, but due to facts which are mentioned in the delay application and inasmuch as after getting such information and documents, due to illness of petitioner No.2 and poor financial background of the petitioners, they could not file the restoration application immediately on receipt of such information.
5.5. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval would further submit that as per settled legal position of law, sufficient cause requires to be construed liberally and a hyper-technical approach requires to be avoided, thereby, the Court can advance justice to the party.
5.6. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval would also submit that there is a Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined good case on merits and inasmuch as the Will of the predecessor of the petitioners is a got-up one and as such in the revenue proceedings, the petitioners could satisfy the Revenue Authority, thereby the entry which was mutated on 5th May, 1997, in favour of the defendants-respondents was cancelled.
5.7. So, learned Advocate Mr.Raval would submit that if by paying reasonable costs or if any condition put upon the petitioners, this Court may condone the delay by entertaining the present writ application.
5.8. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate Mr.Raval would rely upon the following two decisions, which are as under:
(i) State (NCT of Delhi) V/s. Ahmed Jaan reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 582;
(ii) Deceased Madhji Koyaji Zala Through His Heirs & Legal Representatives V/s. Mangaji Ghelaji Parmar and others reported in 2003 (0) AIJEL-HC 202837.
5.9. So, making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Raval would request this Court to allow this writ application.
6. No other and further submissions are made.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
7. The short question falls for my consideration as to whether Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined any gross error of law and/or any jurisdictional error committed by the trial court while rejecting the impugned delay application, wherein the petitioners sought condonation of delay of about 7 years and 6 months in filing the restoration application?
ANALYSIS
8. It is now well settled legal position of law that the cause of delay is material and not the length of delay. The court while adjudicating a delay application requires to see the explanation coming forth from the applicant, which must disclosed sufficient cause. I have minutely gone through the delay application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs with their restoration application. There are so many loopholes and lacunae while explaining such huge inordinate delay and as such contradictory statements made in the impugned delay application, which can be observed and summarized as under:
(i) The petitioners have stated that due to their illiteracy, through the help of power of attorney, the suit was instituted in the year 2011. Nonetheless, in para-5 of delay application, it has been categorically stated that entire suit was handled by power of attorney, but the petitioners (applicants) were getting updates from their Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined power of attorney at regular interval.
(ii) It is further stated in the very para that the petitioners came to know about the death of their power of attorney holder in December 2018. According to applicants as stated in the application that they were not aware about the status of the suit as nothing was given by the power of attorney to them. As observed above, they were getting regular updates about the suit from their power of attorney. It would difficult to swallow that petitioners would not aware even suit number.
(iii) According to averments made in para-5 of delay application, in March 2019, there was the pandemic called COVID-19 came and there was a lockdown in the entire world and as such due to such situation, till 2022, the petitioners could not gather any information.
This is nothing but a factually incorrect statement made by the petitioners in para-5 of the delay application just to excuse the period between December 2018 till 2022 when they have instituted a revenue proceeding against defendants being RTS Appeal No.24 of 2022 (Annexure- E). It is undisputed that COVID-19 badly affected world only in March, 2020 onwards till 2022 but not year Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 2019. When such a false statement has been made by petitioners, only on this ground alone, the Court can reject the delay application.
(iv) It is further stated in para-6 of the delay application that on getting a notice from a Regular Civil Suit No.477 of 2021 filed by one Babubhai Parmar against petitioners, as per the advice received from one Hiteshpuri Goswami and after getting his advice, a revenue proceeding was instituted by the petitioners against the respondents i.e. RTS Appeal No. 24 of 2022. At that stage also, if the petitioners were desirous to get information about the status of their suit, they could have easily get it but did not get status of suit check. If they have chosen to file revenue proceedings before the Deputy Collector, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding, they could have easily filed restoration application. Nonetheless, it has not been done by the petitioners reasons best known to them.
(v) The petitioners have further tried to explain the fact in para-7 of the delay application that when they succeeded in revenue proceedings and entry in their name was mutated by the Revenue Authority, the respondents have objected to such entry by way of RTS Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Case No. 7 of 2023, wherein, for the first time, they came to know about the dismissal of their suit. The petitioners have categorically stated that they have received the certified copy of the dismissal order and other papers of their suit on 29th August, 2023. For reasons best known to them, the restoration application was filed in the month of May 2024. So, there is also further delay of around 8 months in filing restoration application. This shows how causal and negligent manner, petitioners were pursuing their legal remedy in the court of law. As such, the explanation coming forth from the side of the petitioners that due to their poor financial condition and paralysis of petitioner No.2, which caused delay in filing restoration application, even after getting the requisite documents, on 29 August, 2023, is concerned, such explanation is not acceptable because such situation was prevailing with the petitioners since inception and so also about the factum of paralysis of petitioner No.2 has existed since 2021 as stated in para-6 of the delay application and despite that they have filed aforesaid revenue proceeding which are quasi-judicial.
9. Thus, after analyzing the aforesaid facts which are stated in Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined the delay application by the petitioners, only one conclusion can be drawn that there was a sheer negligence on the part of the petitioners in neither pursuing nor looking after their own suit, filed in the year 2011 seeking only prohibitory injunction against the defendants. So far as the merit of the matter is concerned, it is now well settled legal position of law that while adjudicating delay application, the Court cannot go into the merit of the matter. [See H. Guruswamy & Ors. V/s. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased By Lrs. 2025 INSC 53 (para- 17)]
10. When the Court found that the petitioners are grossly negligent in pursuing their remedy and the explanation which has coming forward in the delay application is nothing but an excuse and has not made out any sufficient cause, in such situation, by imposing any condition upon the petitioners, can the delay be condoned? Answer would be emphatic 'No'.
11. The issue germane in the present delay application is more or less settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. Few relevant such decisions referred herein below to better understand contours of controversy germen in the matter.
12. It would apt to first rely upon the recent past decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India delivered on 08-01-2025 in a case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. V/s. A. Krishnaiah Since Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined Deceased By Lrs. reported in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025 reported as 2025 INSC 53, wherein held as under:
"[13] We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.
[14] We are constrained to observe that the High Court has exhibited complete absence of judicial conscience and restraints, which a judge is expected to maintain while adjudicating a lis between the parties.
[15] The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.
[16] The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.
[17] We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time."
(emphasis supplied) 12.1. In the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr V/S Ved Prakash reported in 2024 (14) SCALE 406, wherein held as under, "[10] It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. [12] As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1971 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:-
Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined "The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims."
(emphasis supplied) 12.2 It is also apposite to refer and rely upon the decision in the case of K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors., reported in 2024 (4) Scale 759, wherein, after revisiting the law on the aspect of condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 384). The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay (See P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556). Thus, it is apparent that the words 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined only be given a liberal construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant (See Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81). The principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay were succinctly summarised by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649, and are reproduced as under: "21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms "sufficient cause"
should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted, or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation."
(emphasis supplied) 12.3 Last but not least, it is also profitable to refer to and rely upon ratio laid down by recent past decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India in a case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) BY L RS & ORS V/S Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 (4) SCR 241 : 2024 (4) Scale 846, wherein after referring to its previous decisions, summarized the case law on the issue of limitation vis-a-vis condonation of delay in context of "sufficient cause". It has been held thus:-
"[26] On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."
(emphasis supplied) Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined 12.4 It is also profitable to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of case of Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2013 (14) SCC 81, wherein it is held as under:-
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law, if applied to the facts of the case, no condition can be put upon the petitioners to condone the delay, as the Court found them negligent in filing restoration application and in view of the aforesaid position of law, delay in such situation cannot be condoned, which is correctly not condoned by the Trial Court. I am as Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined such in complete agreement with the view taken by Trial Court which is neither erroneous nor perverse.
14. As far as two the decisions which are cited by the learned Advocate Mr.Raval are concerned, there is no cavil that the facts which are stated by the applicant in the delay application may not be doubted by the Court. But as stated herein above and after analyzing the explanation coming forth in the delay application, the Court found that, there is neither any sufficient cause made out nor any reason available with the Court to condone such gross and inordinate delay occurred due to sheer negligence on the part of the petitioners. So, both these decisions would not help the case of the petitioners anymore. Nevertheless, learned advocate Mr.Raval is unable to countenance the ratio of aforesaid recent past decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court.
15. Before parting, I would like to observe that it is now well settled legal position of law that mere error of law in passing any order by the Civil Court would not be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Civil Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court unless such order is either erroneous, perverse, arbitrary and/or contrary to the provisions of law and or made without jurisdiction. The petitioners unable to Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9702/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/07/2025 undefined make out any of such grounds in their present writ application and as such none of the said ingredients have been found present in the case on hand. [See - (i) Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC 374 (Para 6 and 7) and (ii) Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181 (Para 15 and 16)] CONCLUSION
16. The upshot of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons would lead to only one conclusion that there is no merit in the writ application which requires to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 19 00:06:18 IST 2025