Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Reviben W/o. Somabhai Patel(Expired) (Lhs of Somabhai Bhaichandbhai Patel) & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
The State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 2352 of 2026 In F/First Appeal No. 4383 of 2026
Decided On : 11-06-2026
For the Applicant : Mr. Aditya S. Patel.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Desai Assistant Government Pleader.
Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a 'sufficient cause'; colossal delays cannot be condoned based on vague grounds such as financial inability to pay court fees, as limitation law serves the public policy of ensuring finality in litigation.
Headnote:The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a colossal delay of 6069 days in filing a First Appeal against an order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Idar, for the enhancement of compensation in land acquisition proceedings. The applicants contended that they were poor farmers, lacked resources for court fees, and were misled by a local lawyer. The primary issue was whether the inability to arrange funds for court fees and general ignorance of legal technicalities constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning such an extensive delay. The court reasoned that the law of limitation is founded on public policy to ensure finality in litigation and that financial hardship is not a valid ground for condoning delay, especially when provisions like Section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, allow for the subsequent payment of deficient court fees. In the result, the present application for delay condonation stands dismissed. The registration of the first appeal is refused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for condonation of delay in filing a land acquisition appeal. (Para 1) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Learned AGP Mr. Shailesh Desai waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.
1.1 By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’), the applicants have prayed for following relief in para 18(A) which reads as under:
“(A) Allow this application by condoning the delay of 6069 days in filing the First Appeal against the order dated 23.03.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Idar in L.A.R. Case no.482 of 2007 in the interest of justice.”
2. It is a case where applicants intends to prefer an appeal against the judgment and award passed in L.A.R. Case No.482 of 2007 dated 23.03.2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Idar. Applicant by way of an appeal intended to enhance the compensation.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Aditya S Patel appearing for the appellant and learned AGP Mr. Shailesh Desai appearing for the State.
4. According to submission of learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Patel, that the applicants are poor farmers and they were not aware of the provision of law and technicalities of the proceedings. He has further submitted that the petitioner are ready to forego the interest of the time period of which delay occurred.
4.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Patel further submitted that for adjoining village in an acquisition, the Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs.10.25/- per square meter as against the compensation of Rs.3.35/- per square meter in the present case. Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Patel further submitted that since it is a beneficial piece of legislation, the Court should take lenient and liberal approach and should condone the delay by imposing appropriate conditions.
4.2 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Patel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Civil Application No.2464 of 2024 in F/First Appeal No.653 of 2024 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Laxmi Narain vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75141.
4.3 Learned Advocate Mr. Aditya Patel would further submit that the Co-ordinate Bench has condoned the delay of 12 to 17 years observing that it is a beneficial piece of legislation and delay is not malafide.
4.4 It is also argued that; condonation of delay at the best would give one opportunity to the petitioner/appellant to put his case before appellate Court; thus, he requested this Court to condone the delay, may be with imposing conditions.
5. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Shailesh Desai hotly contesting the application for condonation of delay would submit that delay is not explained by the claimant nor even a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Learned AGP Mr. Shailesh Desai further submitted that the delay of 6,000 odd days is huge and inexplicable and in absence of sufficient cause explaining the delay, this Court may not condone the delay.
5.1 Learned AGP Mr. Shailesh Desai would further submit that the delay cannot be condoned on the equitable consideration on the ground of the hardship or on the ground that the claimant is ready and willing to forego the interest for the time period of delay. Learned AGP Mr. Shailesh Desai would further submit that it is expression “sufficient cause” occurring in Section 5 of the Act has to be interpreted in facts and circumstances of the case. Upon above submission, he would submit to dismiss the application, as applicant is failed to explain delay and demonstrate sufficient cause.
6. Having heard both the sides, at the outset, let met refer the reasons stated by the applicants to explain the huge and colossal delay of 6069 days in filing the first appeal, which reads as under:
“6. That the applicants further state that though the local lawyer suggested to prefer appeal but applicants not received the adequate amount and as the applicants were not having adequate resour
