Chhaganbhai Manubhai Vaghela vs Milanbhai Shantibhai Vora (Patel)

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 480 Guj
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2025

Gujarat High Court

Chhaganbhai Manubhai Vaghela vs Milanbhai Shantibhai Vora (Patel) on 1 July, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/1431/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                         R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1431 of
                                                    2025

                                               In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6018 of 2025

                       ==========================================================
                                            CHHAGANBHAI MANUBHAI VAGHELA
                                                         Versus
                                        MILANBHAI SHANTIBHAI VORA (PATEL) & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       K K MAGHNANI(7543) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
                       MS BHUMI PATEL FOR MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the
                       Respondent(s) No. 5
                       MR K B MAGHNANI(9673) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
                       MS NIKITA C GANDHI(11570) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                       RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                                                         Date : 01/07/2025

                                                          ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Ms. Pooja H. Hotchandani learned advocate on record for the applicant and Ms. Bhumi Patel learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi learned advocate on record for respondent no.5, Mr. K.B. Maghnani learned advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4.

2. The rule issued by this Court upon respondent nos.2 and 3 is reported to have been duly served, however, no appearance has been entered. Rule has remained unserved qua respondent no.1 who is the driver of one of the vehicle involved in the accident, however, noticing the limited period of present application, the Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:08:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined application is taken up for hearing in absence of the respondent nos.1 to 3. The present application is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 prayed for condonation of delay of 51 days caused in preferring the appeal. Learned advocate for the applicants have mainly relied upon the averments made in the application and has submitted that the time was consumed in obtaining the certified copy of impugned judgment and award and in conveying the aforesaid decision to the claimants. The applicants have later on decided to challenge the same as the quantum was awarded on lower side and the lawyer practicing in the High Court was contracted. The relevant case papers of the matter were handed over to the advocate in the month of February, 2025, and at that stage, the applicants were made aware about the legal expenses to be incurred in filing the appeal. By referring to aforesaid grounds, learned advocate has submitted that in absence of proper legal knowledge and the time consumed in making arrangement for the funds, the delay of 51 days has occurred. She has therefore submitted that because of the aforesaid unavoidable circumstances, it cannot be said that there was gross negligence or inaction on part of the applicant. She is therefore urged this Court to condone the delay.

3. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents, have objected to the aforesaid submission and hence, submitted that Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:08:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1431/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined no sufficient cause is made out to consider the prayer for condonation of delay.

4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the application in absence of any contradictory facts being pointed out, the aforesaid explanation offered is considered to be a sufficient cause. There was no gross negligence or total inaction on part of the applicant for substantial period to not to consider their prayer for condonation of delay. Hence, Delay of 51 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Civil Application is allowed. No order as to costs.

(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Parul Dutta Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MS.PARUL DUTTA(HCD0073) on Sat Jul 05 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:08:48 IST 2025