Gujarat High Court
Laljibhai Dhanabhai Parmar vs Josephbhai Simon Parmar on 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2937/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
2937 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 14326 of 2025
=============================================
LALJIBHAI DHANABHAI PARMAR
Versus
JOSEPHBHAI SIMON PARMAR & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Bhalodi, learned Advocate on record for the applicant. Issue rule returnable forthwith.
2. Looking at the numbers of days of delay involved in filing the captioned appeal, the present application is taken up for final hearing in absence of the respondent. At the outset, learned advocate for the applicant has invited my attention to the averments made in the present application and has submitted that the judgment and award was pronounced on 25.11..2024. The learned advocate on record for the applicant had applied for certified copy on 26.11.2024 which was made available on 10.12.2024. He has further submitted that applicant has sustained injuries in the motor accident and is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal determining the amount of compensation on the Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MS.KRUPABEN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL(HCD0077) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 21:27:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2937/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2025 undefined lower side. According to learned advocate, the Tribunal has committed serious error in not applying the settled principles of law while determining the amount of compensation. He has further submitted that further time was consumed in receipt of the requisite Court fees. In the process, the delay of 50 days has crept in preferring the appeal. He has therefore, submitted that there was no gross negligence or willful inaction on the part of the applicant, however, because of the process involved, the delay had crept in. He had therefore urged this Court to take liberal view and to the condoned the delay caused in preferring the captioned appeal.
3. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Advocate for the applicant and in light of the averments made in application, this Court is of the view that all throughout the applicant was in process of approaching this Court in appeal. There was no gross negligence or willful inaction, however, because of process involved, the delay of 50 days has crept in. Considering the aforesaid explanation offered, this Court is of the view that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal. Hence, the present application seeking condonation of the delay of 50 days is hereby allowed. Present application stands disposed of accordingly.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Krupa Patel Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MS.KRUPABEN HASMUKHBHAI PATEL(HCD0077) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 21:27:06 IST 2025