Gujarat High Court
Sheelaben Hemantbhai Patel vs Junaid Moinuddin Shaikh on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1508/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
1508 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2988 of 2024
=============================================
SHEELABEN HEMANTBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
JUNAID MOINUDDIN SHAIKH & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicants. Noticing the number of days involved and considering the fact that rule issued by this Court upon the respondent no.3 - Insurance Company has been duly served, however, no appearance has been entered and as the grounds raised in the appeal are confined to the issue of quantum, this Court has proceeded for hearing of the present application in absence of respondent nos. 1 and 2,who have not been served with the Court notice.
2. Present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking condonation of delay 13 days caused in preferring the appeal.
3. Considering the averments made in the application, it transpires that though the impugned judgment and award was Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:50:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1508/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined pronounced on 12.10.2023, the applicants were made aware about the same on 24.11.2023. At this stage, the applicants were advised to approach in appeal as the amount of compensation was determined on lower side by the Tribunal. The applicants had immediately approached the advocate on record and had handed over the signed Vakalatnama on 12.12.2023. It is submitted that the time was consumed in following the procedure and the applicants being not aware about the legal intricacies and to manage funds for legal expenses, the delay of 13 days had crept in. By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has submitted that there was no mala fide intention or gross negligence on the part of applicants to not to pursue the matter within the stipulated period of limitation.
4. Considering the averments made in the application and aforesaid explanation offered, this Court is of the view that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 13 days caused in preferring the First Appeal is hereby condoned. Present application stands allowed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 02:50:21 IST 2025