Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7251
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J
Melaji Fakirji Thakore – Appellant
Versus
Kankuben Gabhaji Thakore – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15471 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Apurva R Kapadia
For the Respondents: NOTICE SERVED BY DS
Courts should adopt a pragmatic and liberal approach when interpreting "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to ensure substantial justice and prevent meritorious matters from being dismissed on technical grounds.
Headnote:The Petitioners challenged an order passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), which rejected an application for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against a judgment dismissing a suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Petitioners contended that the trial court failed to adopt a liberal approach regarding “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned to allow the matter to be heard on merits. The court observed that a pragmatic approach should be adopted over a pedantic one, noting that the litigants deal with ancestral property and the delay was attributed to the advocate's failure to inform them of the order. The court relied on established guidelines stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical flaws. The present Petition therefore deserves to be allowed. The order dated 14.8.2018 passed by the learned 11th Additional District Judge (Ad hoc) Ahmedabad District Court, (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against the rejection of condonation of delay application in a civil suit. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. application of liberal interpretation to 'sufficient cause' for substantial justice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. preference for determining rights on merits over technical defaults in property disputes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. setting aside the lower court's order and condoning delay subject to costs. (Para 9) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? | No |
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | No |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? | No |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? | No |
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Apurva R. Kapadia for the Petitioners. Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the Respondents.
2. Rule.
3. By way of this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners / Original Plaintiffs has challenged the order dated 14.8.2018 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the Application”) by the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) [hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Judge”], whereby the learned learned Trial Judge has rejected the Application, seeking condonation of delay, in preferring the Appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur dated 4.2.2014 passed below Application Exh.19 under order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) in Regular Civil Suit No. 452 of 2011, whereby the Application filed by the Respondents (Original Defendants) came to be allowed and thereby Suit came to be dismissed under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code.
4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that the impugned order runs contrary to the settled principle of law inasmuch as the Petitioners ought to have been given opportunity to meet with their case on merits and application filed for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal, which ought to have been allowed by the learned Trial Court keeping in view the liberal approach. It is argued that the findings are contrary to the material placed on record and therefore, the findings suffer from vice of non-application of mind to the real controversy involved and the material placed on record. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that learned Judge has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the term “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the delay in preferring the First Appeal ought to have been condoned. To support his submission, learned Advocate for the Petitioners has referred and and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Collecto v. Katiji, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the legislature had conferred the power to condone the delay by enacting Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matter on merits and the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has further submitted that refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has further referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CRL L.P. No. 219 of 2006 - CBI v. R.P.Tiwari , decided on 7.8.2014. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners has submitte
