MADHUSUDAN BODANLAL AGRAWAL (DECEASED) vs NILESHBHAI VASANTLAL MODI

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4177 of 2026
In F/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION/15823/2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
MADHUSUDAN BODANLAL AGRAWAL (DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
NILESHBHAI VASANTLAL MODI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 16/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Vedant Rajguru, learned advocate for Mr. A.J.Yagnik,
learned advocate for the applicants.
2. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 1402 days in filing
the Civil Revision Application under Section 29 (2) of the Bombay
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
“the Act, 1947”).
3. Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate would submit that looking to
the reasons set out in the application and the fact that original
appellant No.1, i.e., Madhusudanbhai, who was looking after the
legal proceedings on behalf of the applicants, passed away, which
caused delay in filing the revision application. As such the delay is
not deliberate one.
3.1 Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate would submit that, after
passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the Appellate
Court, initially, the applicants were trying to settle the dispute with
the opponent, and to tried to find out an amicable solution, which
consumed time. It is also submitted that, after talks of settlement
failed, the record has to be gathered, and ultimately, it was decided
to challenge the impugned judgment before this Court by way of
Civil Revision Application, and in the meantime, said
Madhusudanbhai died.
3.2 Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate would submit that, as per
settled position of law, the Court should be liberal towards the
condonation of delay; rather rejecting it. It is submitted that, by
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
imposing reasonable cost upon the applicants, whereby opponent
can be compensated, delay in filing the revision application may be
condoned.
3.3 Lastly, Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate would submit that,
applicants herein are original landlord, and no prejudice would
cause to the opponent - tenant if delay may be condoned by this
Court in the interest of justice.
3.4 Making the above submissions, Mr. Rajguru, learned
advocate would request this Court to allow the delay application.
4. Having heard Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate for the
applicants and upon perusal of the averments made in the delay
application, prima facie , it appears that the applicants have,
without giving any particulars for cause of delay of around 1402
days in filing the revision application, in a very casual and cavalier
manner filed this delay application.
5. It may be true that day-to-day delay should not be explained,
but when there is an inordinate and long delay, the delay ought to
have been explained in a manner whereby the Court can satisfy
itself that due to sufficient cause, the applicants could not prefer
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
the revision application in time. Even after minutely going through
the averments made in the application, at least I am not satisfied
that any sufficient cause is made out by the applicants. The reasons
set out in the application is bereft of any particulars as vague as the
explanation. Prime facie, no tenant would like to settle the dispute
with the landlord who lost before the two Courts. It is not in
dispute that applicants failed before the trial Court as well as
appellate Court in a suit for eviction. Assuming in favour of the
applicants that they had tried to settle the dispute but considering
huge delay, such a bald plea cannot be accepted by this Court
which otherwise lacks evidence.
6. So far as submission advanced by Mr. Rajguru, learned
advocate is concerned, that due to the death of one of the parties to
the appeal, i.e., Madhusudanbhai, it caused delay in filing revision,
such fact is not even mentioned and referred in the application. So,
upon asking, Mr. Rajguru, learned advocate would inform this
Court that said Madhusudanbhai died in March 2024. Even if,
such would be the case, during his lifetime, Madhusudanbhai
never tried to initiate any process of filing the revision application,
and after more than two years from his death, the present revision
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
application is preferred by applicants on 08.05.2026.
7. It is settled position of law that in a case where there is a
gross and inordinate delay, where the applicant is found negligent,
even by imposing any condition, including costs, the Court should
not condone the delay.
8. At this stage, it would apt to refer to and rely upon the
decision of Hon’ble Apex Court 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 by 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
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale,
fake or fraudulent claims."
(Emphasis supplied)
8.1 It is apposite to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court 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,
nor 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.
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
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 Courts 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.
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
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)
8.2 It is also profitable to refer to and to rely upon the ratio of
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Pathapati
Subba Reddy (Died) BY LRS & 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
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
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 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)
8.3 It is also not out of place to rely upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court 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 which prevented him to approach the Court
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
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)
8.4 Even, in last year 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 of the respondents, it appears that they want to fix
their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
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)
9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and taking note of the position of law enunciated by
Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that the delay
occurred in filing revision application is not at all found
satisfactorily explained, nor any sufficient cause is made out by the
applicants in filing revision application after 1402 days. Rather, I
am of the considered view that due to sheer negligence on the part
of the applicants, such a huge delay occurred in filing the revision
application which cannot be condoned by imposing any condition
including costs.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I don’t find
merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026

C/CA/4177/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2026
(GJHC240370722026)
11. Registry shall refuse the registration of Civil Revision
Application and Civil Application, if any, accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Mon Oct 19 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 19 14:40:37 IST 2026