Gujarat High Court
Ratilal Hothabhai Parmar vs Shaileshkumar Babulal Brahmbhatt on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1574/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1574
of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 36200 of 2024
==========================================================
RATILAL HOTHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
SHAILESHKUMAR BABULAL BRAHMBHATT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 134 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the delay of 134 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal owing to the poverty of the applicant as he could not arrange the finance to pay the court fees and other expenses involved in preferring the appeal. He further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but has occasioned owing to the Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:52:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1574/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined reasons as stated in the application.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms Kirti S. Pathak appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, appropriate order may be passed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant and having regard to the ground for delay pressed into service, I am of the considered view that the delay has been sufficiently explained and the same deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. No order as to costs. The present application is disposed of.
6. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Ms Kirti S. Pathak on behalf of respondent no.4 in the First Appeal.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) CDP Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR.CHIRAG DESHRAJ PAL(HCD0072) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:52:15 IST 2025