Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. Doshi, J.
Shah Ajitkumar Mafatbhai – Applicant
Versus
Prime Advance Polishing System Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
R/Civil Application (For Condonation Of Delay) No. 4996 of 2025 In F/First Appeal 25867 of 2025
Decided On : 08-06-2026
For the Applicant : Robin Prasad
For the Respondent: Mr Vedant D Gaikwad
Condonation of delay under the limitation law requires establishing sufficient cause. Inordinate delay caused by a litigant’s negligence, lack of diligence, or pursuit of remedies in an incorrect forum cannot be excused; judicial discretion must be exercised strictly to preserve the finality of litigation and statutory bars.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Application for - Sufficient cause - Meaning of - Delay of inordinate length cannot be condoned in absence of sufficient cause - A litigant is expected to be vigilant about rights and judicial proceedings - Seeking remedies before improper forums or procedural lapses do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning massive delay - Appellate discretion must be exercised judiciously and not based on frivolous or superficial grounds - Delay condonation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Power of court toward condonation of delay is discretionary - Courts must prioritize the principle of sound public policy and equity - Liberal approach does not grant unfettered leeway to disregard statutory limitations - Substantial justice cannot be employed to negate the substantive law of limitation. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
An application was filed seeking condonation of an inordinate delay in filing an appeal against an order dismissing a claim for compensation. The applicant attempted to explain the delay by citing the pursuit of remedies before an incorrect legal forum and seeking legal advice, which the court found insufficient.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the explanations provided amounted to a lack of diligence and failed to meet the criteria for "sufficient cause." The court emphasized that administrative or procedural lapses do not entitle a litigant to a condonation order, especially when the claim for a long-standing delay is not adequately justified.
Issues: The main issues were whether an inordinate delay could be condoned based on the premise of seeking remedies in the wrong forum and whether the applicant demonstrated "sufficient cause" for such delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a bona fide and reasonable explanation for the delay. Inordinate delay caused by a litigant’s inaction or filing before an incorrect forum does not constitute sufficient cause, as public policy dictates that statutory limitations must be respected to ensure finality in adjudication.
Result: Condonation of delay application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition for condonation of delay. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention of parties regarding sufficient cause and limitation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. principles for evaluating sufficient cause for condonation of delay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final order dismissing the application due to unexplained delay. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Robin Prasad appearing for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. Vedant D Gaikwad for the respondent.
1.1 By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“[A] That Your Lordship may be pleased to admit and allow this application.
[B] Your Lordship may be pleased to condone delay of 1200 days occurred in filing of the above numbered first appeal.
[C] Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”
2. The petitioner intends to challenge the adverse outcome of Workmen Compensation (Non-Fatal) No.41 of 2012 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Vadodara, whereby petition filed under provision of the Employees Compensation Act has been dismissed on the ground that the petition has been filed against the wrong opponent.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Robin Prasad appearing for the applicant having referred to the petition more specifically para nos.2, 3 and 4 of the petition submits that the petition filed before the learned trial Court was conducted by the trade union on behalf of claimant – Mr. Ajit Mafatbhai Shah. The employee was unaware of the fact that it has been filed against the wrong person. Learned Advocate Mr. Prasad further submits that no sooner the applicant came to know about the fact that the petition before the learned trial Court has been filed against the wrong person, he has filed review/recall application, however, same has been not pressed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
3.1 In view of that, learned Advocate Mr. Prasad submits that this Court may take lenient view and may condone the delay of 1200 days preferred in the first appeal.
4. As regards the aforesaid submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Vedant Gaikwad appearing for the respondent submits that the written statement in the petition before the learned trial Court was filed in the year 2013. It was pointed out in the written statement that the petition has been filed against the wrong person and yet the petitioner continued the petition against the wrong person. Ultimately, learned Workmen Commissioner dismissed the petition on 21.10.2021 believing that the petition has been filed against the wrong person. Only thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this review/recall application before the learned Workmen Commissioner which was not maintainable within the horizon of the law. Learned Advocate Mr. Gaikwad further submitted that nonetheless, the petition lacks sufficient explanation for condonation of delay. In absence thereof, this Court may not exercise the power in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Gaikwad submitted to dismiss this petition.
5. Having heard learned Advocates from both the sides and considering the facts, it appears that the petitioner has tried to explain the delay in para nos.2, 3 and 4 of the petition which are reproduced hereinunder:
“2. That the impugned judgment is dated 21/10/2021 and has been rendered by the Ld. Commissioner after nearly a decade from filing of the compensation application. The compensation application of the applicant has been entirely dismissed and they have not been awarded even a single rupee. That such a seriously adverse outcome compelled him to seek multiple legal opinion pertaining to the adverse outcome within and outside his district of ordinary residence after which the applicant decided to prefer review application dated 20/11/2021 being Civil Misc Application No. 7 of 2021. A copy of the said application is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I.
3. Th
