Nameribhai Babubhai @ Narsanghbhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Guj) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.
Nameribhai Babubhai @ Narsanghbhai Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7695 of 2026
Decided on : 29-06-2026

Important Points

The discretionary power to condone delay must be exercised judiciously. In cases of inordinate delay characterized by gross negligence or lack of due diligence, courts should not condone the delay, as 'sufficient cause' cannot be established by casual, unexplained, or incomplete justifications.

Subject

Civil Law - Limitation and Condonation of Delay

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.227
LIMITATION ACT: S.5

Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Discretionary power - Court must exercise discretion judiciously - Inordinate delay of 1708 days - Where no sufficient cause is established and applicant is found negligent or inactive, power to condone delay cannot be exercised - Principles of 'substantial justice' do not permit overriding strict laws of limitation when there is gross negligence or lack of due diligence by the litigant. (Paras 5.3, 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4)

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court's refusal to condone delay - High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not interfere with orders of the court below unless there is perversity or illegality - An order rejecting condonation of delay based on lack of sufficient cause and applicant negligence remains sustainable. (Paras 7 and 7.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the Court by way of a civil application challenging an order rejecting the condonation of a delay of 1708 days in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to the absence of the holder of the power of attorney, who was outside the state for pursuing studies, and claimed the petitioner suffered from a hearing disability. The appellate court found these explanations to be casual and lacking necessary particulars to justify the prolonged delay, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that there was no valid explanation for the inordinate delay. The petitioner had been negligent and failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring the status of the suit for over four years. Mere excuses regarding the whereabouts of a representative or the lack of communication cannot be accepted as 'sufficient cause' under the law of limitation. The court emphasized that the law requires a litigant to be vigilant and not sleep over their rights, and discretionary relief cannot be granted to an indolent party.

Issues: The central issue was whether the appellate court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone an inordinate delay of 1708 days when the explanation provided by the litigant was found to be insufficient and casual.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the power to condone delay is discretionary and must be exercised only when a 'sufficient cause' is provided. Where there is gross negligence, inaction, and failure to act with due diligence, the court should not condone the delay. The doctrine of 'sufficient cause' cannot be interpreted so broadly as to defeat the statutory provisions of the law of limitation, especially when the litigant has been significantly inactive for an extended period.

Result: Petition dismissed in limine.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR DARSHIT M KAMDAR(11467)
For the Respondent: MS FORUM SHAH, AGP

Table of Content
1. court review of an appeal against a limitation delay rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's justification for procedural delay involving poa holder. (Para 4)
3. assessment of the sufficiency of grounds for condoning delay. (Para 5)
4. established jurisprudence on limitation and discretionary condonation. (Para 6 , 7)
5. final order dismissing the petition for lack of merit. (Para 8)

ORDER :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. Heard Mr. Darshit M. Kamdar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

2. The present petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

“9. The petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that:

(A) This Hon'ble Court may be please to admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this application by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Kachchh in Civil Misc. Application No. 19 of 2022 dated 14.05.2025 at annexure-A and also be pleased to direct the Ld. Sessions Court, Kachchh to heard appeal after condoning the delay in the interest of justice;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this application, the execution, implementation and further operation of the order passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, Kachchh in Civil Misc. Application No. 19 of 2022 dated 14.05.2025 at annexure-A may kindly be ordered to be stayed in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

(D) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to kindly grant any such other and further order(s) or relief(s) as deemed just and proper in interest of justice,”

3. At the outset, it is required to be observed that the present petition is filed against an order passed by the Appellate Court whereby it has not condoned delay of 1708 days, i.e., four years eight months and four days in filing regular First Appeal by the petitioner who happens to be original plaintiff.

3.1. The suit in question was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30.12.2017, whereas, the regular first appeal against the said judgment came to be filed by the petitioner on 03.09.2022. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, impugned delay application being Civil Misc. Application No. 19 of 2022 came to be filed. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court vide its impugned order dated 14.05.2025 rejected the impugned application.

4. Mr. Kamdar, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that there is no malafide and intentional delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal after more than four years. It is submitted that the petitioner was disabled person as not able to hear and as such, the Power of Attorney was given in favour of his son who at relevant point of time was outside the State for study and due to such reasons, they could not contact the lawyer and unable to get the status of the suit.

4.1. It is further submitted that as soon as the Power of Attorney of the petitioner came after completing his study and upon contacting the lawyer, the petitioner came to know about passing of the judgment by the Trial Court against him, then after, he has immediately filed the appeal.

4.2. Mr. Kamdar, learned advocate would further submit that the authorities which are cited in support of delay application before the Appellate Court were not considered by the Appellate Court and as such, the delay ought to have been condoned by the Appellate Court while imposing reasonable cost. It is submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the delay could have been condoned in the interest of justice, as respondent is an authority.

4.3. Mr. Kamdar, learned advocate would lastly submit that the petitioner is ready to pay reasonable cost to other side, if this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made in this petition.

5. Having heard the Mr. Kamdar, learned advocate for the petitioner at length and upon perusal of impugned delay application and impugned order passed thereon by the Court, it remains un