Lack of Due Diligence Kills Remedy: Gujarat HC Refuses Delay Condonation

Refusing to excuse gross inaction even after excluding pandemic and review remedy periods, the High Court of Gujarat reaffirmed that the liberal approach under limitation law cannot be stretched to resurrect rights for negligent litigants.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani adjudicated a civil application seeking condonation of a 475-day delay in filing a First Appeal against a trial court decree dismissing a specific performance suit.

The Court evaluated whether the applicants established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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... 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."

Background

The applicants instituted Special Civil Suit No. 66 of 2010 seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and specific performance of a contract. On July 26, 2017, the trial court dismissed the suit on merits based on photocopies without framing issues or allowing the parties to lead oral or documentary evidence. Citing the death of their advocate in May 2015, the applicants initially preferred a review application on August 19, 2017, which was dismissed on February 19, 2021. Subsequently, the applicants filed the First Appeal before the High Court on August 29, 2023.

The applicants argued that the time spent pursuing the review remedy should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, alongside the COVID-19 limitation suspension period declared by the Supreme Court between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Conversely, the respondents, relying on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Chaudhary ( "2025 (2) GLR 987": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 732), asserted that the applicants remained negligent for years and that liberal interpretation should not prejudice the opposing party.

The High Court observed that after excluding the bona fide review period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Supreme Court's pandemic extension, the actual net delay from March 1, 2022, to August 29, 2023, stood at 484 days. Examining precedents including Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors Vs. Katiji and Ors., N. Balakrishnan Vs. Krishna Murthy, Lanka Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P, and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Kumar Chaudhary, the Court reiterated that while rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights, liberal construction cannot override inaction or lack of diligence. Finding no sufficient cause for the 484-day delay, the High Court dismissed the application.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/Civil Application No. 1912 of 2023 in F/First Appeal/31316/2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:49723-DB
Case Title: Patel Ashvinbhai Bhagvanjibhai Lila & Anr. v. Patel Dhirajlal Vastabhai & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Shrenik R Jasani, Mr. Vimal A Purohit, Mr. Abhishek Sharma
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav A. Gogia, Mr. Anand Gogia

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 8771