Gujarat High Court
Nasimaben Mayudinbhai @ Mayodinbhai vs Rajubhai Dilavarbhai on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 942 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17865 of 2023
======================================
NASIMABEN MAYUDINBHAI @ MAYODINBHAI & ORS.
Versus
RAJUBHAI DILAVARBHAI & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5,6
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate on record for the applicants.
2. Pursuant to notice of rule issued by this Court vide order dated 14th February, 2025, respondent no.3 has entered appearance through Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, learned advocate. Rule has been duly served upon the respondent nos.2, 4, 5 & 6, however, they have chosen not to appear and contest the matter. Rule is unserved qua respondent no.1. Considering the number of days of delay involved, the present Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:06:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM undefined application is taken-up for hearing, in absence of the said respondents, with the assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective parties.
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 1105 days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. The explanation offered as referred in Para-3, it appears that impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 12 th March, 2020. Initially, the claimants have not applied in appeal being contend with the amount of compensation. However, as submitted by the learned advocate for applicant, they were served with notice of admission dated 10 th April, 2023 passed in First Appeal no.1311 of 2023, preferred by the insurance company assailing impugned judgment and award. The applicants have approached to seek legal advice of advocate whereby they were guided to prefer appeal. The applicants have applied for certified copy of the impugned judgments and award on 13th June, 2023, which was delivered on 17th June, 2023. It is averred on oath that appeal could not Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:06:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM undefined be preferred within stipulated period of limitation as the applicants were not aware about the legal intricacies involved and were also required to manage funds for legal expenses.
5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid explanation offered. It is settled legal position that appellate Courts are conferred jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond prescribed period of limitation under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, where sufficient cause is made-out which prevented the applicant to apply in appeal within stipulated period of limitation. Considering the aforesaid explanation offered on the touchstone of bonafides or due diligence of applicants, it cannot be construed that the applicants conducted themselves in gross negligent manner. On the contrary, if the applicants would have choose recourse of filing the cross-objection, then, the delay would have been for few days only.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and the explanation offered in the present application, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered is plausible in the facts of the case. Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:06:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM undefined
7. Considering the benevolent legislation and taking liberal view, this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions to be a sufficient cause for the purpose of considering the prayer for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay of 1105 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby condoned. The Civil Application stand allowed. Rule made absolute.
8. Registry is directed to reflect the name of Ms. Masumi Nanavaty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.3 in the main First Appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...sfs/10.09 Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Fri Sep 12 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 13 05:06:33 IST 2025