Gujarat High Court
Nitinbhai Parbhubhai Chaudhary vs Smitaben D/O Vanabhai Gamit on 28 January, 2022
Author: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/CA/865/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 865 of 2021
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5916 of 2020
=======================================
NITINBHAI PARBHUBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
SMITABEN D/O VANABHAI GAMIT
=======================================
Appearance:
MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 28/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 20 days caused in preferring the captioned first appeal.
2. Heard, the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
3. Having heard the learned advocates present and considering the averments made in the application, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown for the condonation of delay. Further, as per the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, every matter is required to be decided on merits rather than mere technicalities and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, if delay is condoned, the same would meet the ends of justice. The prime purpose for which Section 5 of the Limitation Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 28 20:45:39 IST 2022 C/CA/865/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/01/2022 Act, 1963 was enacted was to enable the Courts to do substantial justice and that is the prime reason as to why very elastic expression and sufficient cause is employed therein so as to sub- serve the ends of justice.
3.1 At this juncture, a beneficial reference may be made to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mafatlal Apparels v. Akbarbhai Ganibhai Saiyed & Ors., 2017 Law Suit (Guj) 1947, 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."
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present application succeeds and is allowed accordingly. Delay of 20 days caused in preferring the first appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of accordingly.
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ] hiren /65 Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 28 20:45:39 IST 2022