Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations regarding delay; courts should adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach to condoning delay to ensure meritorious cases are decided on their merits.

ORAL ORDER

Order dated 27/10/2015 passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in CMA No.129 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay of 17 days caused in preferring the restoration application seeking restoration of the Summary Suit No.684 of 2013 which came to be decreed ex-parte is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The short facts of the case are that summons of the summary suit No.684 of 2013 came to the served upon the petitioner company which was received by the authorized person of the petitioner company but as some delay was caused in filing appearance, the suit was heard and decreed ex-parte. The petitioner filed the restoration application to reconsider the case of the petitioner alongwith the delay condonation application which came to be dismissed and therefore the present petition is filed.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the delay caused in preferring the restoration application was a meager delay of 17 days; however the court below without verifying mentioned 176 days delay caused in preferring the restoration application. He would further submit that there is no callous approach on the part of the petitioner and therefore it is submitted that considering the period of delay, it may be condoned. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Moin Gulam Mayuddin Badshah vs. Joravarkhan Jamilkhan Pathan [2023 LawSuit (Guj) 2592] and submitted that delay may be condoned.

4. On the other hand learned advocate for the opponent submitted that trial court has rightly rejected the delay condonation application as no proper explanation which can be said to be “sufficient cause” is mentioned in the application. She would further submit that petitioner has not properly explained the delay and it was the negligence on the part of the petitioner which can be viewed seriously and therefore delay may not be condoned. In support of her submissions, she would place reliance upon decision of this court rendered in SCA No.7962 of 2017 on 05/09/2023 wherein this Court has rejected the petition by not condoning the delay of 880 days.

4. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that matter/s should be heard on merits rather than dismissed on the technical grounds of delay.

To be noted further that, here in the present as per case of the petitioner the delay caused in restoration application is of 17 days whereas trial court without verifying recorded 176 days which in the opinion of this court cannot be said to be of huge delay. Of course, if there is an inordinate delay caused with callous approach; then the same would not be permitted to condone; but when sufficient grounds are shown and delay is not much huge, then the same requires to be condoned.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Msr. Katji and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, has observed as under:-

"1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is con doned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be appl