Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Manubhai Parmar vs Divyeshbhai Narsinhbhai Chavda on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/925/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
925 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 32564 of 2023
=============================================
HANSABEN MANUBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
DIVYESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate for the applicants. Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate has entered his appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2 Insurance Company. Despite the service of notice of Rule upon the respondent no.1, no appearance has been entered. Considering the limited prayers prayed for in the present application, application is taken up for final hearing in their absence.
2. Present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at the instance of the applicants- original claimants praying for condonation of delay of 458 days caused in preferring the appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants has mainly relied upon the averments made in the application and has Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/925/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined submitted that the time was consumed in seeking legal advise to avail remedy of appeal and having decided so, the applicants were made aware about the legal expenses to be incurred, which led to further time being consumed to make arrangement in this regard. By referring to the aforesaid averments, the learned advocate has submitted that there was no mala fide intention or lack of any bona fide to approach in appeal after stipulated period of limitation. He has further submitted that looking to the benevolent legislation, non entertaining of the present application on the technical ground of delay may take away the right of the applicants to pursue their legal remedy to present their case for enhancement on merits. He has therefore, urged this Court to take liberal view and to condone the delay.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the respondent no.2- Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions. According to learned advocate, no sufficient cause has been made out, more particularly, by contending that the impugned judgment and award relates to 2022. Thereafter, the Insurance Company ha deposited the aforesaid amount and no appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid impugned judgment and award. In such circumstances, this Court may not entertain the application seeking condonation of delay of huge number of days of 458. However, he has urged this Court that in case if the Court is inclined to accept the prayer for condonation of delay, suitable condition may be imposed as regards the waiver of interest for the interregnum period of delay for no fault of the Insurance, they may not be saddled with the liability to pay Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:40:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/925/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, in case if they succeed in appeal.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, in light of the averments made in the application, the Court is of the view that not entertaining the application at this stage of the condonation of delay would take away right of the applicants who are original claimants to present their case for enhancement of the amount of compensation in appeal. Looking at the benevolent legislation and considering the explanation offered, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer sought for in the present application in order to strike out the balance. Noticing the huge number of days involved, the delay of 458 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned on condition that the applicants shall not be entitled to interest for the interregnum period of delay of 458 days caused in preferring the appeal, in case if their appeal accepted on merits for enhancement of amount of compensation. Let copy of this order be placed on record in First Appeal as well. Present application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:40:47 IST 2025