Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. Doshi, J.
Jeevanbhai Laxmanbhai Patel & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Civil Application (For Condonation Of Delay) No. 3910 of 2025 In F/First Appeal 23658 of 2024
Decided On : 08-06-2026
For the Applicant : Mr. Hemal Shah
For the Respondent: Ms Dixa Pandya Assistant Government Pleader
The law of limitation serves a public policy interest by ensuring finality in litigation. While the provision for condoning delay mandates a liberal construction, it requires a showing of 'sufficient cause'; where there is inordinate, unexplained delay, the court must prioritize the statutory limitation period over discretionary relief.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3 and 5 - Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 1708 days - Challenge to award for land compensation - Explanation provided, namely ignorance of law and rural background, held insufficient - Law of limitation is based on public policy - While Section 5 allows for a liberal, justice-oriented approach, it cannot be invoked to defeat the substantive law of limitation under Section 3 - Discretion of court to condone delay is not a matter of right and must be exercised when there is clear evidence of bona fide cause and due diligence - In absence of sufficient explanation for the time elapsed between knowledge of the award and filing of appeal, the application for condonation of delay warrants dismissal. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, claiming to be agriculturists, sought condonation of a 1708-day delay in filing an appeal against an award concerning land acquisition. They contended that their lack of legal knowledge and financial constraints, along with their rural background, prevented timely action. The opposing party argued that the applicants had accepted the compensation amount well before initiating legal steps to challenge the award, demonstrating a clear lack of due diligence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any valid, bona fide explanation for the inordinate delay. The claim of poverty or lack of legal knowledge did not constitute "sufficient cause" when there was a complete lack of due diligence and an unexplained gap between the awareness of the award and the initiation of legal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause to justify the condonation of a significant delay and whether the court should adopt a liberal approach in the absence of due diligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the provision for condonation of delay is to be interpreted liberally to advance justice, it does not permit the court to ignore the statute of limitation where there is inordinate delay and no acceptable explanation. Discretion must be exercised with caution, ensuring that the party seeking relief has acted with due diligence and that the cause shown is bona fide.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of legal proceedings for condonation of delay under the limitation act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding sufficient cause for delay based on rural background versus lack of due diligence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. application of judicial precedents regarding inordinate delay and the requirement for demonstrating bona fide reasons. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion that inordinate, unexplained delay without due diligence warrants dismissal of the application. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
J.C. Doshi, J.
1. The captioned application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with following prayers:
“[A] The Hon’ble Court be pleased to condon the delay of 1708 days in filing the first appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhaliya in Land Acquisition Reference No.56 of 2001;
[B] The Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant any other appropriate and just relief/s;”
2. The judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.56 of 2001 by the Reference Court at Khambhaliya intend to be questioned for enhancement of the compensation by filing the proposed application.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hemal Shah appearing for the applicants and learned AGP Ms. Dixa Pandya appearing for the State.
4. In line of his petition, learned Advocate Mr. Hemal Shah while relying upon the judgment in case of Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107, submitted that refusing to condone the delay can result in refusing the meritorious matter at nascent stage and would tantamount to defeat the cause of justice. He would further submit that as against that when delay is condoned at the most, what can happen is that appellant would be entitled to present his merit and the case shall be decided after hearing the party. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah further submits that the appellants were peasants and were not knowing provision of the law.
5. The complexity of the legal provision was adhered to the petitioner and since they were not knowing the implications of the legal procedures having been consolidated and receiving the legal advice, the application has been preferred within the short span and therefore, submitted that the Court may take up liberal and lenient view to condone the delay. Learned Advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to the delay in time period and therefore, he submitted that the Court may put condition while passing the order to condone the delay.
5.1 Upon above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Shah submitted to allow the application and to condone the delay.
6. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Ms. Dixa Pandya referred to the common judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Civil Application No.1024 of 2025 with other matters filed for preferring the appeal against the group of the matters. Learned AGP Ms. Pandya hence submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench by an order on 17th July, 2025 dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
6.1 Learned AGP Ms. Pandya submitted that present matter is on same footing and therefore, this Court has to consider the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. Secondly, learned AGP Ms. Pandya submitted that there is no explanation much less sufficient explanation offered by the petitioner to explain the inordinate delay of 1708 days and in absence of sufficient explanation, the Court should not condone the delay by taking a liberal approach.
6.2 Upon above submissions, learned AGP Ms. Pandya submitted to dismiss this petition.
7. Having heard learned Advocate appearing for both the sides and applying the mind to the facts of the case, it appears that in the other group matters, when petitioners were intended to file the appeal for enhancement of the compensation, they had filed Civil Application No.1024 of 2025 along with other applications for condonation of delay. This Court in Civil Applica
