The recent judgement by the Gujarat High Court showcases a pragmatic approach to legal proceedings, allowing for the condonation of a 53-day delay in a revision application filed by the applicant to challenge an order of maintenance. The applicant, facing financial constraints, was unable to file the application promptly but took necessary steps once funds were secured. This decision emphasizes the court’s commitment to ensuring substantial justice is served, even in the face of procedural delays.
Arguments
- The applicant prefers to challenge the order of maintenance due to facing financial constraints.
- The applicant is facing two proceedings and was unable to file the application due to financial crunch.
- After making arrangements for funds, the applicant has filed the Revision Application.
- Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 allows for the condonation of delay to enable courts to do substantial justice.
- The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 is flexible and enables courts to apply the law meaningfully in the interest of justice.
- The Supreme Court has been adopting a liberal approach in matters before it, but this approach may not be followed in all courts.
- This liberal approach is based on the principle that a litigant usually does not benefit from lodging an appeal late.
- Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold
- Causing justice to be defeated
Analysis
- Affidavit filed in compliance with the order dated 26.04.2024.
- Application filed for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the revision application.
- Question raised about why not every hour’s or second’s delay is considered for condonation.
- No significant consequences for condoning delay, only decision based on merits after hearing the parties.
- Delay in legal proceedings should be viewed pragmatically and without presumption of deliberate or culpable negligence
- Litigants do not benefit from delays and may actually risk their case by causing delays
- Judiciary is respected for its ability to remove injustice, not legalize it on technical grounds
- In cases where substantial justice conflicts with technical considerations, the cause of substantial justice should be given preference
- There is no vested right for the other party to benefit from injustice due to non-deliberate delay
Decision
- The application is allowed.
- Delay of 53 days caused in filing the revision application is condoned.
Case Title: ANIRUDHSINGH RANJITSINGH VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/6857/2024
