Gujarat High Court
Jyotiben @ Jyotsanaben Wd/O Ajaykumar ... vs Shilpanbhai Thakorbhai Patel on 31 July, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3989/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3989 of
2025
In
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 141 of 2025
================================================================
JYOTIBEN @ JYOTSANABEN WD/O AJAYKUMAR NANDLAL JOSHI &
ORS.
Versus
SHILPANBHAI THAKORBHAI PATEL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 31/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Rituraj Meena waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 188 days in preferring Cross-Objections in First Appeal No.3941 of 2024, which is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company-respondent No.2 herein against judgment and award dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi.), Palanpur, Banaskantha in MACP No.242 of 2016.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:49:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3989/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined
3. Learned Advocate for the applicants-original claimants drew attention of this Court to the contents of para-3 to 5 of the application and submitted that there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicants-original claimants in filing the present Cross- Objections.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent formally opposes the grant of application.
5. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 188 days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as inordinate. Moreover, main First Appeal No.3941 of 2024 filed by the Insurance Company is already admitted by order dated 22.11.2024.
6. Considering the submissions and the contents of the application mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also explained sufficiently.
7. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and others vs/. Union of India and Another, reported in, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein the term "Sufficient Cause" was interpreted and the approach of Courts while deciding application for condonation of delay was Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:49:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3989/2025 ORDER DATED: 31/07/2025 undefined discussed.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. The delay of 188 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (NSSG,J) SHITOLE Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Fri Aug 01 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 02 00:49:45 IST 2025