Gujarat High Court
Patel Dashrathbhai Ishwarbhai vs Dineshbhai Kantilal Patel on 16 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
2925 of 2026
In F/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION/13085/2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
PATEL DASHRATHBHAI ISHWARBHAI & ORS.
Versus
DINESHBHAI KANTILAL PATEL
=============================================
Appearance:
APURVA DAVE(3777) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 16/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Apurva Dave, learned advocate for the
applicants.
2. This Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, seeking condonation of 1094 days delay caused in filing
the revision application.
3. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the applicants would
submit that there is no intentional delay on the part of the
applicants to approach this Court after about 1094 days from
impugned order but due to not received timely advise at the
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
relevant point of time, it caused delay in filing the revision
application. It is submitted that by imposing cost, the delay
may be condoned in the interest of justice.
3.1 Lastly, it is submitted that if delay would not be
condoned by this Court, the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court may come in the way of the applicants during the
course of the trial.
4. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicants, it
appears that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on
23.01.2023, whereas the present revision application appears
to have been filed by the applicant on 21.04.2026. The
applicants have made averments in para-2 of this application
that after passing of the order, they were under confusion to
approach the proper forum and after consultation with local
advocate in December, 2025, the applicant could decide and
file this revision application. There is no other reason/cause
stated in entire application.
5. Having gone through the averments made in the
application, more particularly para-2, by no stretch of
imagination, it can be considered as sufficient cause,
inasmuch as the applicants were represented by an advocate
before the Trial Court and if the applicants could have
consulted the advocate after passing of the order in the month
of January, 2023, surely they would have been properly
advised by the advocate concerned. It seems that such advise
sought by the applicants only in December, 2025 and having
not explained inordinate and huge delay between January,
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
2023 to December, 2025, prima facie, it appears that the
applicants remained idle for said period and woke up from
slumber and then decided to file the revision application. Such
an act of the applicants constitutes their sheer negligence in
prosecuting legal remedy available to them.
6. The law on issue of delay condonation is more or less
well settled. If the Court finds the gross, inordinate and
unexplained delay, whereby it shows the negligence of the
applicant, such delay cannot be condoned even by imposing
any condition including cost. I would like to refer few recent
past decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India
explained the exposition of law in this regard.
6.1 It is apt to first rely upon the decision of Honourable
Supreme Court of India in a case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr
V/S Ved Prakash reported in 2024 (14) SCALE 406,
wherein held as under:
“[12] As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to
the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum
MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance
Corporation, 1971 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held
as under:-
“The necessity for enacting periods of limitation
is to ensure that actions are commenced within
a particular period, firstly to assure the
availability of evidence documentary as well as
oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim
against him; secondly to give effect to the
principle that law does not assist a person
who is inactive and sleeps over his rights byPage 3 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
allowing them when challenged or disputed
to remain dormant without asserting them
in a Court of law. The principle which forms
the basis of this rule is expressed in the
maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura
subveniunt (the laws give help to those who
are watchful and not to those who sleep).
Therefore, the object of the statutes of
limitations is to compel a person to exercise his
right of action within a reasonable time as also
to discourage and suppress stale, fake or
fraudulent claims.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.2 It is apposite to refer and to rely upon a decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.B. Lal
(Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.,
reported in 2024 (4) Scale 759, wherein, after revisiting the
law on the aspect of condonation of delay, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under:
“10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the
discretionary power of a Court to condone delay must
be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised
in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want
of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji
Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi & Ors.
(2021) 18 SCC 384). The discretion is also not
supposed to be exercised in the absence of any
reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation
for the delay (See P.K. Ramachandran v. State of
Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556). Thus, it is
apparent that the words ‘sufficient cause’ in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given
a liberal construction, when no negligence, norPage 4 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to
the litigant (See Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81). The
principles which are to be kept in mind for
condonation of delay were succinctly
summarised by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee
v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 649, and are
reproduced as under:
“21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic,
justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while
dealing with an application for condonation of
delay, for the Courts are not supposed to
legalise injustice but are obliged to remove
injustice.
21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be
understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and
purpose regard being had to the fact that these
terms are basically elastic and are to be applied
in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-
situation.
21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount
and pivotal the technical considerations should
not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.
21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to
deliberate causation of delay but, gross
negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant
is to be taken note of.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party
seeking condonation of delay is a significant and
relevant fact.
21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence
to strict proof should not affect public justice
and cause public mischief because the CourtsPage 5 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate
eventuate there is no real failure of justice.
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsulate the conception of reasonableness
and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free
play.
21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between
inordinate delay and a delay of short
duration or few days, for to the former
doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to
the latter it may not be attracted. That
apart, the first one warrants strict approach
whereas the second calls for a liberal
delineation.
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and
attitude of a party relating to its inaction or
negligence are relevant factors to be taken
into consideration. It is so as the fundamental
principle is that the Courts are required to
weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect
of both parties and the said principle cannot be
given a total go by in the name of liberal
approach.
21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted,
or the grounds urged in the application are
fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to
expose the other side unnecessarily to face such
a litigation.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.3 It is also profitable to refer and to rely upon ratio laid
down by Honourable Supreme Court of India in a case of
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) BY L RS & ORS V/S
Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 INSC
286 : 2024 (4) SCR 241 : 2024 (4) Scale 846, wherein
after referring to its previous decisions, summarized the case
law on the issue of limitation vis-a-vis condonation of delay in
context of “sufficient cause”. It has been so observed and held
as under:
“[26] On a harmonious consideration of the
provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid
down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public
policy that there should be an end to
litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy
rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been
exercised or availed of for a long time must
come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed
period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act
have to be construed differently, such as
Section 3 has to be construed in a strict
sense whereas Section 5 has to be
construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice,
though liberal approach, justice-oriented
approach or cause of substantial justice
may be kept in mind but the same cannot be
used to defeat the substantial law of
limitation contained in Section 3 of the
Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
discretion to condone the delay if sufficient
cause had been explained, but that exercise
of power is discretionary in nature and may
not be exercised even if sufficient cause is
established for various factors such as,
where there is inordinate delay, negligence
and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in
similar matter, it does not mean that others are
also entitled to the same benefit if the Court is
not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay
in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to
be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be
decided on the parameters laid down for
condoning the delay and condoning the delay for
the reason that the conditions have been
imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the
statutory provision.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.4 It is also profitable to rely upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of case of
Basawaraj and Another v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer reported in 2013 (14) SCC 81, wherein it is held as
under:-
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that where a case has been presented in the
Court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain
the Court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which
means an adequate and enough reason whichPage 8 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
prevented him to approach the Court within
limitation. In case a party is found to be
negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in
the facts and circumstances of the case, or found
to have not acted diligently or remained inactive,
there cannot be a justified ground to condone
the delay. No Court could be justified in
condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing
any condition whatsoever. The application is to be
decided only within the parameters laid down by this
Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case
there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to
approach the Court on time condoning the delay
without any justification, putting any condition
whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation
of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to
showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6.5 Even, in recent past also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Shivamma (DEAD) By Lrs Vs. Karnataka
Housing Board & Ors. reported In 2025 INSC 1104, in
clear terms held that where there is delay/laches on the part
of the applicant in not prosecuting the legal remedy, in the
absence of any sufficient cause made out by the applicant, the
Court should not condone the delay while exercising its power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the case of
Shivamma (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
thus:-
“258. The length of the delay is a relevant matter
which the Court must take into consideration
while considering whether the delay should be
condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach ofPage 9 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
the respondents, it appears that they want to fix their
own period of limitation for instituting the
proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of
limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his
right to have the matter considered on merits
because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot
be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in
such circumstances of the case, it cannot be
heard to plead that the substantial justice
deserves to be preferred as against the technical
considerations. While considering the plea for
condonation of delay, the Court must not start
with the merits of the main matter. The Court
owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of
the explanation offered by the party seeking
condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause
assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the
other side is equally balanced that the Court may
bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose
of condoning the delay.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Taking note of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions and no
sufficient cause is made out by the applicants in this
application, I am of the considered view that by imposing the
cost to be paid by the applicants also, such inordinate and
gross delay cannot be condoned. As such this application
deserves no consideration by this Court.
8. As far as apprehension on the part of the applicants that
impugned order will come in their way is concerned, the Trial
Court has rejected the impugned application filed by the
applicants under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is settled position
of law that Trial Court is required to decide the lis between
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2925/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/07/2026
undefined
the parties as per the evidence forthcoming on record during
the course of the trial of the suit and decide the issues
germane to the suit in accordance with law. According to me,
such apprehension is ill-founded.
9. In view of the forgoing discussion and reasons, I do not
find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is rejected.
No cost. The Registry shall refuse the registration of revision
application.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Jul 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 17 02:34:13 IST 2026
