Gujarat High Court
Shaileshkumar Ramabhai Solanki vs Manabhai Ajabhai Taral on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/894/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 894 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4082 of 2025
==========================================================
SHAILESHKUMAR RAMABHAI SOLANKI
Versus
MANABHAI AJABHAI TARAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Patel has appeared on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, who has received instructions to appear on behalf of respondent no.2-Insurance Company.
2. Heard learned advocates on record for the respective parties.
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 174 days caused in preferring the appeal.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:26:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/894/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate appearing for the applicant, at the outset, has invited my attention to the averments made in the application, and has submitted that there was no negligency or inaction on the part of the applicant to not approach this Court within stipulated period of limitation. While referring to the circumstances offered in the application, learned advocate has submitted that because of financial constraints, time was consumed in arranging the funds to meet with legal expenses. At the same time, the applicant was also health issues. He has, therefore, urged this Court to take liberal view to condone the delay.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company has objected to the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant, and has submitted that the explanation offered cannot be considered as a sufficient cause to condone the delay.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and noticing the explanation offered, in light of the averments made in the application, though the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 08.05.2024 and the certified copy of the same was provided to the applicant on 20.05.2024, the applicant seems to have approached the advocate on record in the month of Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:26:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/894/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 undefined June-2024 and necessary legal advise was sought for. The decision was taken to approach in appeal in the month of August-2024. Noticing the aforesaid explanation offered and in absence of any contradictions being pointed out by the respondent, this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation to be a sufficient cause, which prevented the applicant to approach this Court in appeal within stipulated period of limitation. Hence, delay of 174 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby condoned. The Civil Application is allowed, and stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
7. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Mr. Alkesh N. Shah representing the respondent no.2-Insurance Company in the main appeal as well.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon Jul 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 28 22:26:19 IST 2025