Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. DOSHI, J.
Babubhai Naranbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Manharbhai Makanbhai Patel – Respondent
R/Civil Revision Application No. 61 Of 2005, Civil Application (For Bringing Heirs) No. 1 Of 2025, Civil Application (For Condonation Of Delay) No. 2 Of 2025
Decided On : 17-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant : Ms Sonal D Vyas
For The Respondent: Mr. Sagar Shah For Mr Amit V Thakkar

Inordinate delay of 7385 days in seeking condonation for bringing legal heirs on record not condoned as explanation was vague, lacked specifics, and showed gross negligence; liberal approach under Section 5 Limitation Act cannot supplant requirement of sufficient cause.

Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 29(2) - Condonation of delay in filing application to bring legal heirs on record - Delay of 7385 days - Sufficient cause - Liberal approach - Courts must adopt liberal approach while considering condonation of delay, but such approach cannot be used to do away with the substantive law of limitation; delay cannot be condoned on mere invocation of 'liberal approach' or 'justice-oriented approach' without showing sufficient cause. (Paras 11, 16, 17) - The concept of 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed but should be applied with due diligence; the party seeking condonation must act with reasonable promptness and proper conduct. (Paras 12, 13, 25, 26) - Inordinate delay warrants a strict approach; vague, general and unspecific explanations, unsupported by evidence, do not constitute sufficient cause. (Paras 21, 22) - Where the applicant is a private litigant, the same standards of diligence apply; mere absence of malafide does not excuse gross negligence. (Paras 14, 21)

(B) Limitation - Application for bringing legal heirs after death of sole revisionist - Principles of abatement - Right to sue survives but the legal representatives must act diligently to bring themselves on record; failure to do so results in abatement of proceeding. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The deceased revisionist, a landlord, had filed a revision under Section 29(2) of the Rent Act challenging the appellate order that reversed a decree for eviction. The revisionist died. His legal heirs filed an application after 7385 days to condone the delay, set aside abatement and bring themselves on record. The application averred that the advocate was not informed in time about the death and the applicants were unaware of the limitation period. The Coordinate Bench had earlier reminded the applicants to take steps, but they delayed further.

Findings of Court:
The explanation offered was insufficient; no details were given of the date of death, knowledge of pendency, or steps taken during the long delay. The applicants, being class I heirs, were aware of the litigation yet failed to act promptly. The delay remained largely unexplained. The court found gross negligence and lack of bona fides, and held that the precious right accrued to the opposite party could not be defeated by such a casual explanation.

Issues: Whether the delay of 7385 days in filing the application to bring legal heirs could be condoned on the grounds stated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court, applying principles from Supreme Court rulings, held that inordinate delay cannot be condoned absent specific, credible and sufficient cause. The right to sue survives but the legal representatives must exercise due diligence; vague and general statements without supporting evidence do not amount to sufficient cause. The court emphasized that limitation law creates valuable rights and a party cannot be allowed to fix its own limitation period. Result : Civil Application for condonation of delay dismissed; prayer for bringing heirs rejected; Civil Revision Application stands abated; interim relief vacated; Rule discharged.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

Order in Civil Application No. 2 of 2025.

1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of in-ordinate delay of 7385 days caused in preferring the application for bringing the heirs of revisionist Babubhai Naranbhai Patel.

2. The introductory facts of the case are that the deceased Babubhai Naranbhai Patel had filed the Civil Revision Application under Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, (Rent Act) against the respondent Manharbhai Makanbhai Patel, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2004 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1998 allowing the appeal of the tenant, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Small Cause Judge, Surat dated 31.1.1998 and dismissed the Small Cause Suit No. 62 of 1987.

3. Further are that the deceased Babubhai was the landlord. He let out the ground floor of the immovable property situated at Rang-Darshan Apartment, Darjisheri, Nanpura, Surat for running the tailor shop on the basis of leave and license. The Small Cause Suit No. 659 of 1982, which was filed by the landlord, was compromised and the consent decree was passed. The defendant/tenant was to pay Rs. 250/- per month as rent. In the background of the aspects, the landlord filed the Rent Suit against the tenant, being Small Cause Suit No. 62 of 1987 for recovery of peaceful and vacant possession of the rented premises. As stated hereinabove, the learned Trial Court granted decree in favour of the landlord but the Appellate Court reversed the same. The Revision was filed by landlord Babubhai. In the aforesaid factual background since the landlord Mr. Babubhai Naranbhai Patel had expired, his heirs and legal representatives have preferred this application for condonation of delay of 7385 days.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Sonal Vyas appearing for the applicant to explain the delay submitted that it is the duty of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased revisionist to inform the death of the revisionist to his advocate. She has further submitted that as soon as she received the correct facts along with the supported documents of death certificate, the application has been preferred to condone the delay of 7385 days. She would further submit that there is no malafide on the part of the applicant. She further submitted that the applicant has a strong prima facie case on merit and fair chance of success in the revision. She would further submit that right to sue survives in favour of the applicant and in these factual aspects, if delay is not condoned, it would result in irreparable loss to the applicant.

5. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas, further submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the decree in favour of the landlord, however, on the technical ground, the learned Appellate Court reversed the decree but the landlord has all fair chance to succeed in getting the eviction and decree. She would further submit that if the delay is not condoned it would result in irreparable loss, incapable of monetary compensation, whereas condonation of delay would not cause prejudice to the respondent, more particularly since the applicants are class I heirs of the deceased landlord ipso facto fall in definition of landlord here, right to sue survives in favour of the applicant. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas further submitted that no sooner she came to know about the demise of the revisionist and the details having been provided she has filed the application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abatement as well as bringing the heirs of sole revisionist on the record and therefore, in absence of any malafide on the part of the applicant, the Court may take a liberal view and may condone the delay. She further submit that since delay is long, Court may impose suitable cost and condone the delay.

6. By making appropriate submissions, learned advocate Ms. Vyas submitted to allow this application an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1082

Inordinate delay of 7385 days in seeking condonation for bringing legal heirs on record not condoned as explanation was vague, lacked specifics, and showed gross negligence; liberal approach under Section 5 Limitation Act cannot supplant requirement of sufficient cause.

Cases Referred (6)