Gujarat High Court
Jitendrakumar Kanaiyalal Anadkat vs Pravinbhai Ravjibhai Vaghasiya on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1484/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
1484 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2343 of 2025
=============================================
JITENDRAKUMAR KANAIYALAL ANADKAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI RAVJIBHAI VAGHASIYA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the applicant. Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate has entered her appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. Notice issued by this Court upon the respondent no.1 has been duly served, however chosen not to appear.
2. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 234 days caused in preferring the appeal at the instance of the original claimant.
3. It is submitted that though the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 20.03.2024, the advocate has Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1484/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined applied for certified copy on 09.05.2024, which was made available on 13.5.2024. It is also submitted that the applicant was not aware about the legal intricacies involved in order to pursue the remedy of appeal to seek enhancement of the amount of compensation has taken financial help from his friends and family. The learned advocate has urged this Court to take liberal approach and to condone the delay. It was submitted that there was no willful negligence or gross inaction on the part of the applicant and they may be given a fair chance to present his case for enhancement of amount of compensation.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak for the respondent Insurance Company has vehemently objected to aforesaid submission of learned advocate for the applicant- original claimant. At outset, learned advocate has submitted that there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified huge delay which is required to be not entertained.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate for the applicant, in light of the averments made in the application and considering the benevolent scheme of the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1484/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Act, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion and to condone the delay. The main object of the Act is to extend the just and reasonable compensation in a motor vehicle accident, not entertaining the appeal on the technical issue of delay, would take away their remedy to present their case for enhancement of amount of compensation. Hence, delay of 234 days caused in preferring restoration application of the main appeal is hereby condoned. Present application stands disposed of.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:34 IST 2025