Gujarat High Court
Zaverbhai Babubhai Domadia vs Labhuben Gopalgiri L H Of Gopalgiri ... on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8792/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8792 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
ZAVERBHAI BABUBHAI DOMADIA
Versus
LABHUBEN GOPALGIRI L H OF GOPALGIRI RAMGIRI
BAVAJI & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR ATIT D THAKORE(5290) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ANIL P JAGANI(6729) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DARSHANKUMAR P VEGAD(11612) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2,1.3
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.4,1.5,1.6
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Atit Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The present petition is filed by the owner of the trailer being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 8 th December, 2017 passed in application preferred by the present petitioner seeking review of the order dated 12 th Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:41:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8792/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined October, 2012 passed below Exh.6. By the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the application seeking review as being not maintainable. In the process, the application seeking condonation of delay has also been dismissed.
3. Learned advocate had invited my attention to the facts of the case and the grounds raised in the petition. It is submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously fixed the liability of the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle - trailer. As according to him, the policy for covering the insurance coverage of the vehicle was availed and therefore, it was the liability of the insurance company to indemnify him. However, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the application preferred by the insurance company at Exh.34, deleting it as opponent from the array of the parties and the original claim petition on erroneous grounds. The Tribunal without appreciating the aforesaid merits of the case has unfortunately not entertained the application of condonation of delay being filed along with the application seeking review of the order dated 12 th October, 2012 passed below Exh.6. He had further submitted that the application below Exh.33 is pending consideration, wherein the prayer is sought for to implead one Anubhai Valjibhai Domadia and the insurance company as party opponents.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court had called for R. & P., which have been made available. It transpires from the record that the main claim petition has not been proceeded so far because of the pendency of the present Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:41:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8792/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined petition. Considering the prayer sought for in the present petition, it is evident that the same is confined to the challenge to the order refusing to entertain the review application where the limited challenge was made to the order of interim compensation being passed by the Tribunal on an application preferred by the claimant under Section 140 of the Act of 1988. This Court during the course of hearing had inquired from the learned advocate with regard to the amount towards interim compensation being deposited. Learned advocate had mainly relied upon the merits of the case and the order passed by this Court granting ad-interim relief pending this proceedings.
5. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned advocate and noticing the limited challenge sought for in the present petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain present petition solely on the ground that in absence of stay being granted by this Court against the interim order of compensation being passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the Act of 1988, present petition is not required to be considered noticing the fact that the original claim petition, which relates to the year 2006 is not proceeded so far because of the pendency of the present petition. The present petition stands dismissed.
6. The Tribunal is directed to immediately proceed with the hearing of the claim petition and expeditiously decide the same within the period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The interim relief granted in terms of para-7A and B, whereby the directions were sought for to stay the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:41:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8792/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025 undefined order under challenge dated 8 th December, 2017 passed below Ehx.1 in Misc. Application no.6 of 2014, is vacated.
7. In view of the dismissal of the present writ petition, the petitioner is directed to deposit amount of compensation awarded under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 along with the interest accrued upon it before the Executing Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It would be open for the petitioners to raise all the contentions raised before this Court in the original claim petition. The same shall be considered by the Tribunal by deciding the claim petition in accordance with law.
R. & P. is directed to be send back forthwith to the concerned Tribunal.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...
Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 21:41:54 IST 2025