DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER GUJARAT CIRCLE, AHMEDABADversusGIJUBHAI BHULABHAI PATEL AND ORS.

                                                   17-FA(ST)-690-2022.doc


Sayali
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 690 OF 2022

Defence Estate Officer
Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad             … Appellant
            V/s.
Gijubhai Bhulabhai Patel And Ors      … Respondents
                             WITH
          INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 694 OF 2022
                             WITH
          INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 695 OF 2022
                             WITH
        INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 19658 OF 2022

Mr. R. G. Govilkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailesh
S. Pathak, for Appelant-Applicant.



                           CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                           DATED      : SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
P.C.:

               INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19658 OF 2022

1.       I have considered the averments made in the application
for condonation of delay, the submissions advanced on behalf of
the Applicant, and the material placed on record. The present
application seeks condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against
the judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court.

2.       The judgment and Award under challenge is dated 17th
December 2014. It is stated that the Applicant initially applied for
a Certified Copy of the judgment and Award on 22nd May 2017


                                 1
                                                    17-FA(ST)-690-2022.doc


and that the Certified Copy was made ready on the very same day.
It is stated that the Applicant again applied for a Certified Copy on
24th February 2020 and the said copy was made ready on 25th
February 2020. Thereafter, according to the Applicant, an Appeal
was filed before the High Court of Gujarat. The said Appeal was
subsequently withdrawn on 17th March 2021 on the ground that
the High Court of Gujarat did not have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the matter. The Applicant has stated that the present
Appeal came to be filed after receipt of the warrant of attachment.
However, the application itself states that the present Appeal was
filed on 24th November 2020. Thus, there is an apparent
inconsistency in the chronology pleaded in the application,
particularly regarding the date on which the Appeal before the
High Court of Gujarat was withdrawn and the date on which the
present Appeal was filed. This aspect also assumes significance
while considering whether the entire period of delay has been
satisfactorily explained.

3.    Even assuming, for the sake of consideration, that the period
during which the Applicant was prosecuting the proceedings
before the High Court of Gujarat is liable to be excluded and that
the Applicant is otherwise entitled to the benefit of the applicable
provisions relating to exclusion of time spent in bona fide
prosecution of proceedings before a Court without jurisdiction,
that by itself does not explain the substantial period preceding
such proceedings. The judgment and Award was passed on 17th
December 2014, whereas the second Certified Copy was applied
for only on 24th February 2020 and was made ready on 25th



                                  2
                                                     17-FA(ST)-690-2022.doc


February 2020. Thus, there remains a period of about five years
from 17th December 2014 to 25th February 2020 which has not
been satisfactorily accounted for.

4.      The mere fact that a Certified Copy was applied for on 22nd
May 2017 does not explain the period from the date of the
judgment and Award till the date of such application. More
importantly, no sufficient particulars have been placed on record to
show what prevented the Applicant from taking appropriate steps
to challenge the judgment and Award within the prescribed period.
The application is required to disclose the circumstances which
constitute sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. A vague or
incomplete explanation for a substantial part of the delay cannot
be treated as sufficient cause merely because some part of the
subsequent period may otherwise be capable of exclusion.

5.      The burden upon an applicant seeking condonation of delay
is to place before the Court facts and circumstances which
reasonably explain the delay and demonstrate that there was
sufficient cause for not approaching the Court within the
prescribed period. The Court cannot condone the delay merely on
the basis of sympathy or on the ground that the Applicant may
have a case on merits. The question at this stage is confined to
whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained. In the present
case, the material placed before the Court does not furnish any
satisfactory explanation for the substantial period commencing
from 17th December 2014 and extending up to 25th February
2020.




                                     3
                                                   17-FA(ST)-690-2022.doc


6.    It was submitted, on instructions of the concerned officer,
namely Nayan Patel, who is present in Court, that the Applicant
has deposited the amount awarded by the Reference Court before
the Executing Court from its account. The fact of such deposit has
been taken into consideration. However, the deposit of the
awarded amount cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning
the delay in filing the Appeal.

7.    I have also considered the circumstance that the Applicant
claims to have prosecuted proceedings before the High Court of
Gujarat. Even if the Applicant is given the benefit of the period
during which such proceedings were prosecuted bona fide before a
Court which was subsequently found to lack territorial jurisdiction,
the Applicant must still explain the period which preceded such
prosecution. Exclusion of one period does not automatically
explain the remaining period. In the present case, the substantial
period between 17th December 2014 and 25th February 2020
remains unexplained. The explanation offered therefore does not
disclose continuous circumstances which prevented the Applicant
from filing the Appeal within the prescribed period. There is also
no sufficient material to establish that the Applicant acted with
reasonable diligence throughout the relevant period. The delay is
substantial, and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for a
material portion of the delay assumes importance. In such
circumstances, the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
cannot be exercised merely because the Applicant has deposited
the Award amount or because the Applicant seeks an opportunity
to challenge the Award on merits.



                                  4
                                                    17-FA(ST)-690-2022.doc


8.    Considering the averments in the application as a whole, I
am unable to hold that the Applicant has established sufficient
cause for the delay in filing the Appeal. The material period of
delay remains unexplained. The subsequent prosecution of
proceedings before the High Court of Gujarat, even if taken into
consideration in favour of the Applicant, does not remove this
fundamental deficiency in the explanation. Consequently, the
statutory requirement of establishing sufficient cause under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been satisfied.

9.    For the aforesaid reasons, I find that the Applicant has failed
to make out sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. The
application therefore deserves to be dismissed. The issue regarding
the deposit of the Award amount, if any, shall remain open for
consideration by the Executing Court in accordance with law.

10.   The Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently, the Appeal, being barred by limitation, shall not be
entertained.

11.   The Appeal and Interim Application do not survive.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  5