Gujarat High Court
Jayshriben Dineshbhai Khambhati vs Jitendrabhai Ramavadh Chaudhari on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1900/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1900 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9073 of 2025
==========================================================
JAYSHRIBEN DINESHBHAI KHAMBHATI & ORS.
Versus
JITENDRABHAI RAMAVADH CHAUDHARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) 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 NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 331 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACP No.196/2011.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the certified copy was applied on 03.02.2025 and the same was ready on 18.02.2025 and was obtained on 21.02.2025. The financial condition of the applicants was not good therefore, they waited until, the Insurance Company, has not deposited the awarded amount. On depositing of the awarded amount, the disbursement was made in accordance with the Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:07:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1900/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined direction of the learned Tribunal and only after getting the portion of the awarded amount, the applicants could arrange the Court fee and other financial expenses, therefore, owing to the poverty, the applicants could not manage the fund to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay of 331 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal. It is further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide but occasioned owing to the reasons stated in Paragraph no.6 of the application.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appropriate order may be passed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the delay has been sufficiently explained. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in AIR (1987) SC 1353, the present application deserves to be allowed and accordingly the delay is condoned. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) HARSHIT Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:07:01 IST 2025