Gujarat High Court
Kanti Murji Siyani vs L H Of Decd Late Alimamad Musahai Ruknani on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2900 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15662 of 2025
==========================================================
KANTI MURJI SIYANI
Versus
L H OF DECD LATE ALIMAMAD MUSAHAI RUKNANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KULDEEP J MEHTA(8571) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH(3093) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates on record for the respective parties.
2. Considering the number of days of delay involved, the present application is taken up for hearing.
3. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for condonation of delay of 526 days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company has mainly relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed through Legal Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined Manager. It is vehemently submitted that the explanation offered cannot be treated as sufficient cause to consider their prayer for condonation of delay. The reference was made to the legal position to contend that indolent litigant could not get sympathy and delay caused due to laxity of litigant is deprecated and would not constitute sufficient cause. He has, therefore, urged this Court to dismiss the present application. Though, learned advocate for the respondent- Insurance Company has disputed the aforesaid explanation offered; however, has been unable to contradict the aforesaid facts stated on oath by the applicant that the knowledge of the judgment and award was derived only when the warrant was served in execution proceedings.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and in light of the averments made in the application, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered is plausible in the facts of the case.
6. Considering the explanation offered, it appears that the applicant is the owner of the offending vehicle, and the claim petition was directed ex parte, in absence of the applicant having participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal under the belief that the vehicle is insured with the opponent-Insurance Company, and Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined therefore, their interest is sufficiently represented. However, the applicant became aware about the impugned judgment and award dated 20.08.2023 being passed by the Tribunal only when the warrant was issued in the Execution Petition No.24 of 2025 filed by the Insurance Company seeking recovery of the amount paid to the claimants. It is contended that the applicant immediately applied for certified copy on 08.04.2025, which was received by them on 11.04.2025. Considering the aforesaid explanation offered and noticing the ground raised in the appeal memo, whereby the applicant intends to establish his case being covered under the insurance coverage and issue of holding valid and effective license, this Court is inclined to exercise the discretion to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal. However, noticing the fact that the applicant was not diligent in pursuing the proceedings before the Tribunal, the delay is condoned subject to deposit of costs of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the delay of 526 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby condoned, subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Kachchh within a period of one week from today.
7. At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the applicant prays for appropriate directions to Registry to notify the First Appeal for admission hearing, as he is facing execution.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:06:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined
8. Considering the aforesaid request, Registry is directed to register the First Appeal, and notify the same for admission hearing on 04.08.2025.
9. Registry is also directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Mr. Dhairyawan D. Bhatt appearing for respondent no.3-Insurance Company in the main appeal as well.
10. With these observations, the Civil Application is allowed, and stands disposed of.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 01:06:46 IST 2025