Heirs Of Decd. Birendrasinh ... vs Bhupatbhai Chikabhai Makwana
2021 Latest Caselaw 11229 Guj

       C/CA/907/2021                                ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 907 of 2021

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 10198 of 2021

==========================================================
           HEIRS OF DECD. BIRENDRASINH MANGALSINH GOHIL
                               Versus
                  BHUPATBHAI CHIKABHAI MAKWANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
JENIL M SHAH(7840) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
SAMEE A URAIZEE(7747) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                                Date : 09/08/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Samee Uraizee for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the respondent No.3.

2. Rule is served on respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of either.

3. This application is filed by the applicants - the original claimants praying to condone the delay of 119 days in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal impugned in the First Appeal.

4. To explain the delay, it is averred in the averments of the civil application that after the judgment and award was delivered on 24.9.2019, the applicants applied for certified copy immediately on 11.11.2019 as they were not satisfied with the compensation awarded and

C/CA/907/2021 ORDER DATED: 09/08/2021

wanted to prefer the appeal. However, it is stated that what is supplied to them was simple copy and the certified copy was applied again, which was finally received on 15.3.2021.

5. The applicants happened to be the widow and minor sons who lost their bread earner in the vehicular accident occurred on 21.7.2007. They were in want of fund and had no source of income. Financial constraints prevented them from prefer the appeal for enhancement as they had to manage the amount of payment of court fee and other legal expenses. In view of theses, time elapsed to result into delay of 119 days.

6. From the above, it cannot be said that the passage of time was deliberate. Delay is properly explained to make out sufficient cause. Delay of 119 days deserves to be condoned.

7. Accordingly, delay of 119 days is condoned. Civil Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI