Gujarat High Court
Nureilahi Liyakat Nalla vs Akil Pyaarkha Pathan on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1841 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7539 of 2025
==========================================================
NUREILAHI LIYAKAT NALLA
Versus
AKIL PYAARKHA PATHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the applicant-original claimant. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar has entered her appearance on behalf of respondent no.3-Insurance Company.
2. Rule issued by this Court upon respondent nos.1 and 2, is reported to have been duly served. However, no appearance has been entered on their behalf. Looking to the prayer sought for in the present application, the present application is taken up for hearing in their absence.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
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 906 days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the impugned judgment dismissing the claim petition was pronounced on 06.09.2023. He has further pointed out that the applicant had sought legal advise about the legal remedy available, whereby, he was advised to approach before this Court. The applicant has, therefore, immediately approached the advocate practicing in High Court, and handed over Vakalatnama on 06.11.2023. Learned advocate has further pointed out that the applicant, at that stage, was made aware about the legal expenses, to be incurred including the court fees, which was provided on 30.12.2023. The certified copy of the judgment was handed over to the advocate of the High Court on 12.01.2024. Learned advocate has further pointed out that initially the writ petition was preferred before this Court, which was registered as Special Civil Application No.17405 of 2024. The aforesaid matter was notified for admission hearing before the Co-ordinate Bench on 12.02.2025, whereby the Court had permitted the learned advocate representing the pettioner to withdraw the said petition with a liberty Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined to file First Appeal. The Court had also observed that since the petitioner was litigating before the wrong forum, the Court may consider extending benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the facts of the case. Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted that having approached by way of present appeal in the month of March-2025, the time consumed in pursuing the petition, in light of the writ petition being moved on earlier occasion, the same may be excluded for the purpose of considering the number of days of delay arosed in presenting the appeal. By making aforesaid submissions, he has, therefore, urged this Court to accept the explanation offered, and to condone the delay.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar appearing for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for the applicant. She has pointed out that considering the explanation offered, it cannot be treated as a sufficient cause to take liberal view to condone the delay. However, she has alternatively submitted that in case, if the Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation offered, suitable conditions be imposed with regard to waiver of interest for the aforesaid interregnum period of delay caused in preferring the appeal.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties, in light of the averments made in the application and noticing the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench, while disposing the writ petition, this Court is of the view that the applicant is the original claimant, who intends to pursue the remedy of appeal. The claim petition preferred by the applicant, has been dismissed for default, in absence of learned advocate representing the applicant and noticing the fact that for substantial period, the claimant has failed to lead the evidence before the Tribunal. In absence of contradictions being pointed out, the fact that after the impugned judgment of dismissing the claim petition was pronounced, the advocate on record for the appellant had informed about such order being passed to the applicant only on 06.09.2023, remains uncontroverted. The certified copy of the impugned judgment placed along with the First Appeal indicates that the same was applied for and received in the month of September-2023. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation offered by the applicant to be sufficient cause which prevented the applicant from approaching this Court within stipulated period of limitation. As regards the time being consumed in pursing the matter, whereby, erroneously the judgment was assailed under the nomenclature of writ petition and having realized the aforesaid mistake, the permission Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:40:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined being obtained from the Co-ordinate Bench to move in appeal, this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation being offered to be a sufficient cause for the further time being consumed in pursuing the matter before the wrong forum. Hence, the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is required to be extended. It appears from the record that appeal was presented along with delay condonation application on 05.03.2025. For the foregoing reasons, considering the aforesaid dates and looking to the explanation offered, the delay of 906 days caused in preferring the appeal, deserves consideration, and is hereby condoned. The Civil Application is allowed, and stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
7. As regards the interest is concerned, it would be open for the respondent- Insurance Company to agitate the issue of delay in the main appeal.
8. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar representing the respondent no.3-Insurance Company in the main appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:40:05 IST 2025