Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Krishna Gopal Lata Matilal Basak ... vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2016

Author: S.H.Vora

Bench: S.H.Vora

                  C/CA/5671/2016                                                ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5671 of 2016

                In FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) NO. 1220 of 2016
         ==========================================================
             KRISHNA GOPAL LATA MATILAL BASAK (FATHER OF DECD.) &
                                  1....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus
                           UNION OF INDIA....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR PJ MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
         NIRAVKUMAR P MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
         RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA

                                       Date : 26/08/2016


                                         ORAL ORDER

1. The present Civil Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 431 days caused in preferring Appeal.

2. The reasons for delay caused in preferring Appeal are narrated in paragraph No.2 of the application.

3. The words "sufficient cause for not making the 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 type of the case. The word "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of the Limitation Act needs a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Tue Aug 30 07:03:57 IST 2016 C/CA/5671/2016 ORDER bonafides or deliberate inaction on the part of the applicant. In nut shell, the decisive factor for condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency and satisfactory explanation. Since there is nothing on record so as to infer inaction or want of bonafides that can be attributed to the applicant, the applicant cannot be non-suited at threshold and thus, deprived of substantial justice which has been made available to the applicant by way of statutory appeal. So, in order to advance substantial justice to the applicant, the explanation of delay does not smack of malafides and the delay caused in preferring the Appeal is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(S.H.VORA, J.) shekhar Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Tue Aug 30 07:03:57 IST 2016