PATEL ASHVINBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI LILAversusPATEL DHIRAJLAL VASTABHAI

     C/CA/1912/2023                                ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1912 of
                              2023
                                In
                    F/FIRST APPEAL/31316/2023
                              With
 CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2025
                                In
      CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2025
                                In
               R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1912 of 2023
                              With
      CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2025
                                In
               R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1912 of 2023
==========================================================
             PATEL ASHVINBHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI LILA & ANR.
                               Versus
                 PATEL DHIRAJLAL VASTABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR. SHRENIK R JASANI(9486) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. GAURAV A. GOGIA(14128) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5,6,7
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                             Date : 07/08/2026

                           ORAL ORDER
            (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
Order in Civil Application No. 2 of 2025:
      Looking to the averments made in the Civil Application, the delay
in preferring the Civil Application for bringing the legal heirs is allowed.
Civil Application is allowed.


Order in Civil Application No. 1 of 2025:


      Looking to the averments made in the Civil Application, present
Civil Application for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of


                                 Page 1 of 8
      C/CA/1912/2023                                ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




deceased respondent no.1 and 4 is allowed in terms of para-11(C).
Learned advocate is permitted to amend the cause title accordingly.

Order in Civil Application No. : 1912 of 2023:

1.     This application is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing First
       Appeal. The delay of 475 days caused in preferring the captioned
       filed No.F/FA/31316 of 2023.


2.     The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the Appeal are set out
       as under:
(1)    The applicants had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 2010 in
       the Court of Civil Judge, Gondal at Rajkot for declaration,
       permanent injunction and specific performance of contract with
       regard to suit property.


(2)    The Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.07.2017
       was pleased to dismiss the suit on merits. Admittedly, neither the
       plaintiff nor defendant had given an opportunity to led the
       evidence. The Civil Court based on the available documents in the
       form of xerox copies, decided the rights and liabilities of the
       parties, as if, the parties have led the evidence. No issues were
       framed. In such circumstances, the applicants being original
       plaintiffs, on advice, challenged the judgment of dismissal of the
       suit, filed a review petition on 19.08.2017, before the District
       Court, Gondal at Rajkot. The said Review Application came to be
       dismissed on 19.02.2021. The applicants herein, then approached
       this Court by way of First Appeal, challenging the judgment of


                                  Page 2 of 8
       C/CA/1912/2023                                  ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




           dismissal of suit, which came to be filed on 29.08.2023. However,
           there is a delay according to calculation made by the applicants of
           475 days in preferring the Appeal.


3.         The grounds of delay are explained as under :


     (a)     That the judgment of dismissal of suit is against the provision of
             Code of Civil Procedure. No issues were framed by the Court.
             None of the parties had led their respective oral as well as
             documentary evidence. Thus, instead of dismissing the suit for
             want of prosecution, the Civil Court for reasons best known to
             him, decided the suit on merits, which directly affect the
             substantial rights of the applicants with respect to the suit
             property, as the respondents failed to execute the sale deed after
             getting substantial amount from the applicants herein. Thus,
             there is a merit in the appeal and opportunity should be given to
             decide the lis between the parties on merits.


     (b)     The applicants had retained their advocate Mr. P. J. Gauda, who
             expired on 03.05.2015, since then the applicants were not aware
             about the pendency of the suit and its stage.


     (c)     The applicants on advice, challenged the judgment by preferring
             Review Application and therefore, when the party was pursuing
             a wrong remedy, then as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
             the period spent for pursing the review remedy from 29.08.2017
             to 19.08.2021, is required to be excluded.



                                     Page 3 of 8
       C/CA/1912/2023                                    ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




     (d)      There was Corona period between 2019 to 2021. The Supreme
              Court suspended the period of limitation commencing from
              15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022.


     (e)      The delay was not intentional and no negligence or inaction
              imputable on the part of the applicants.


4.         In the aforesaid grounds, it is stated that the delay has been
           sufficiently explained and same may be condoned so as to do
           substantial justice.


5.         Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for Mr. Vimal Purohit,
           learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that there are
           chances in succeeding the appeal, as the respondents failed to
           perform their part so far as terms and agreement of the contract is
           concerned and now, due to escalation in price of the land, they
           turned hostile and refused to perform their part by executing sale
           deed of the suit land. The applicants were unaware about the death
           of their lawyer and therefore neither the court nor the son of the
           lawyer informed them about the dismissal of the suit. The approach
           of Civil Court is contrary to the settled law. The Court should not
           have dismissed the suit on merits without giving opportunity to the
           respective parties. The maximum time was consumed in review
           application proceedings and said proceedings was being filed
           bonafide and as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time
           consumed in pursuing the Review Application, could be excluded.
           The provision of the Limitation Act, being stayed during Corona
           period. In such circumstances, it was submitted that, the delay

                                      Page 4 of 8
     C/CA/1912/2023                                 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




      cannot be said to be deliberate and considering the circumstances
      as referred above, the delay has been explained satisfactorily and
      therefore, it is prayed that, the technical approach may be avoided
      and the grounds, as referred shall have to be liberally construed to
      do substantial justice.


6.    Mr. Anand Gogia, learned advocate for the respondent vehemently
      opposed the application. It was contended that, the applicants -
      original plaintiffs remained negligent and grounds for delay as
      referred are neither correct nor bonafide. The suit was instituted on
      04.02.2010 and it came to be dismissed 26.07.2017. Against
      which, the Review Application was filed on 19.08.2017 and same
      came to be dismissed on 19.02.2021. Thereafter, after period of 2
      years i.e. on 29.08.2023, the appeal along with present delay
      condonation application filed before this Court. Therefore, it is
      evident that, the applicants did remain negligent for about 7 years
      and there was gross negligence on their part and the explanation
      offered cannot be acceptable and convincing and as such, the
      explanation would not to be treated as ‘sufficient cause’ for
      condoning the delay. In support of the submissions, heavy reliance
      been placed in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar
      Chaudhary (2025 (2) GLR 987), to contend that, the expression
      ‘sufficient cause’, cannot be liberally interpreted, if the negligence,
      inaction or lack of bona-fides is attributed to the party and delay
      should not be excused as a matter of generosity and rendering
      substantial justice is not to cause prejudice to opposite party.




                                 Page 5 of 8
     C/CA/1912/2023                                ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




7.    Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue
      falls for our consideration, as to whether ‘sufficient cause’ existed
      for condoning the delay in filing the First Appeal?


8.    In the facts of the present case, after dismissal of the suit, the time
      consumed in pursing the Review Application, whereby, the
      judgment was challenged required to be excluded, as provided
      under Section 14 of the Limitation Act because, the applicants had
      been bona-fide pursing the wrong remedy. Thus, the time period
      from 26.07.2017 to dismissal of the Review Application i.e.
      19.02.2021, is required to be excluded in calculating the delay
      caused in preferring the First Appeal. Admittedly, during the
      pandemic time, the provision of Limitation Act being suspended,
      commencing w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Thus, from the date
      of judgment of Review Application till 28.02.2022, the time period
      is required to be excluded. The actual delay would require to be
      calculated from 01.03.2022 to filing of First Appeal i.e.
      29.08.2023, which would come to around 484 days. In such
      circumstance, whether the delay of 484 days caused in filing First
      Appeal, satisfactorily explained or not.


9.    This delay application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
      Act, which says that, any appeal or application, may be admitted
      after the prescribed period, if the appellant / applicant satisfies the
      court that he has ‘sufficient cause’ for not preferring the appeal or
      making the application within such period. At the outset, it needs
      to be stated that, generally speaking the Courts have to adopt



                                 Page 6 of 8
      C/CA/1912/2023                               ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




       liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of
       delay on the ground of ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the
       Limitation Act. This principle is well settled and has been set out
       succinctly in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag
       and Ors Vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 107). In the case of
       N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishna Murthy 1998 (7) SCC 123, it has
       been reiterated by the Supreme Court that, rules of limitation are
       not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. However, in the case
       of Lanka Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P, (AIR 2011 SC 1199),
       it was held and observed that, the Courts have to adopt a liberal
       approach in considering the application for condonation of delay
       but the concept of liberal approach, justice oriented approach and
       substantial justice, cannot be employed to jettison the substantial
       law of limitation. In another case, the Supreme Court (State of
       Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Kumar Chaudhary (2025 (2) GLR
       987) (supra), it was observed that, where the case has been
       presented beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court
       as to what was the ‘sufficient cause’, which means, an adequate
       and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court
       within limitation. The discretion to condone delay, has to be
       exercised judicially, based on the facts and circumstances of each
       case and that, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be liberally
       interpreted, if the negligence, inaction or lack of bona-fide is
       attributed to the party.


10.    In light of the settled principle of law and applying the same to the
       facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that, the


                                  Page 7 of 8
        C/CA/1912/2023                                                            ORDER DATED: 07/08/2026




         explanation offered for condonation of delay is found to be not
         satisfactory. The applicants in their application have not given any
         acceptable and genuine instances that, there was ‘sufficient cause’
         preventing them to prefer the First Appeal. As pointed out, in
         preceding para-8 of the order, the applicants, were inactive and
         remained negligent. There was enough time to act promptly to file
         an appeal even after the pandemic period. But somehow, they
         could not approach this Court promptly with all due diligence,
         which shows that they slept over their rights without any justifiable
         reason. Thus, it shows that the applicants failed to demonstrate
         reasonable diligence or bona-fide in pursing their rights. Thus,
         therefore, in our opinion, the reasons set forth for the delay are
         totally insufficient to condone the delay and the explanation is no
         explanation much less sufficient or satisfactorily explanation,
         which can be said to constitute ‘sufficient cause’ for not preferring
         an appeal within prescribed time period.


11.      In view of the aforementioned reasons, the present application fails
         and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. No order as to
         costs.

                                                                                           (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                        (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/08/2026 13:41:54




                                                     Page 8 of 8