Gujarat High Court
V. R. Engineering vs Ashaben Wd/O Sureshbhai Somabhai Gamit on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4944/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4944 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 25581 of 2024
================================================================
V. R. ENGINEERING
Versus
ASHABEN WD/O SURESHBHAI SOMABHAI GAMIT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 420 days caused in filing the appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia for respondent No.6. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5.
3. It is submitted that the challenge is made by the present applicant is against the judgment and order directing the applicant and respondent No.5 jointly and severally to pay the sum of Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:18:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4944/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined compensation. It is contended that though the employees in question were insured respondent No.2-Insurance Company, learned Commissioner earred in holding the present applicant and respondent No.6 negligent. Thereafter, a review application came to be filed seeking reconsideration of the impugned award. However, on 05.03.2024, learned Commissioner rejected the review application and thereafter, the decision to challenge the impugned judgment and award was taken by the applicant. It is contended that because of the aforesaid reasons, appeal could not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. There is no malafide intention on the part of the applicant in challenging the impugned judgment and award. The reasons assigned in the application are sufficient to condone the delay.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent-Insurance Company has objected in granting the application and submitted that the reasons assigned in the application are not sufficient and therefore, delay may not be condoned.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:18:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4944/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined advocates for the parties and the averment made in the application, it appears that after the passing of the impugned judgment and award, the applicant filed review application seeking reconsideration of the impugned judgment and award as the contention of the applicant that the employees in question were insured with respondent-Insurance Company but learned Commissioner did not consider it and held applicant and respondent No.6 liable. Review application came to be rejected on 05.03.2024 and thereafter, decision to challenge the impugned judgment and award was taken and after consultation the appeal was filed. It appears that the period of delay is huge and such huge period of delay cannot be condoned without saddling with cost. To balance the equity, the delay is condoned on a condition that applicant shall deposit cost of Rs.5,000/- before the Legal Services Authority of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
6. In view of the above, present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:18:32 IST 2025