Gujarat High Court
Nasimben Irfanbhai Khoram vs Dineshbhai Nathabhai Boricha on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2645/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2645 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 32743 of 2024
==========================================================
NASIMBEN IRFANBHAI KHORAM & ORS.
Versus
DINESHBHAI NATHABHAI BORICHA & ORS.
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking condonation of delay of 702 days caused in preferring the appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special) at Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No. 653 of 2017.
3. Mr. Nishit A Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the delay of 702 days has occasioned in preferring the appeal owing to the poverty of the applicants, as they could not arrange the necessary Court Fee and other Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 21:55:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2645/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined expenses to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. He further submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide, but has occasioned owing to the reasons mentioned in detail at para no. 8 of the instant application. He further submitted that the claimants shall not claim any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the entire period of delay, if the appeal for enhancement is allowed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. Tanmay B Karia, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2 submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an appropriate order may be passed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties and having regard to the poverty of the applicants, who could not arrange the necessary funds for preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, in my considered opinion, constitutes a sufficient ground for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimants shall not be entitled for any interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the entire period of delay, if the appeal for enhancement is allowed.
6. In view of the above, the present Civil Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 21:55:31 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2645/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined
7. Registry is directed to show the name of Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. Tanmay Karia, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 in the First Appeal.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) ARUN/HARSHIT Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MR.HARSHIT SANCHETI (HCD0070) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 21:55:31 IST 2025