Geetaben W/O Chandrakant ... vs Abdullatif S/O Shaikh Yusuf
2021 Latest Caselaw 2358 Guj

               C/CA/1423/2019                             ORDER



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
             R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1423 of 2019
               In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9375 of 2019

==================================================
        GEETABEN W/O CHANDRAKANT VITTHALBHAI PATEL
                           Versus
                ABDULLATIF S/O SHAIKH YUSUF
==================================================
Appearance:
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                    Date : 15/02/2021
                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Kurven Desai appearing for the applicants through video conference. Mr.Desai seeks permission to delete the unserved respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. The present application has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following relief:

"6(a) Allow this Civil Application by condoning the delay of about 514 days in preferring the First Appeal in the interest of justice."

3. Learned advocate Mr.Desai for the applicants, while explaining the delay, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award was passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad on 12.05.2017 and the concerned learned advocate for the applicants applied for certified copy thereof on 14.05.2017, which was obtained on 29.06.2017. It was

C/CA/1423/2019 ORDER

submitted that after obtaining the certified copy the concerned learned advocate informed the applicants about the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. After coming to the knowledge about the said fact, the applicants met one learned advocate and after discussing the matter, concerned learned advocate advised the applicants to prefer an appeal before this Court. As the applicants are not well versed with the nuances of law, they consulted the closed family members and relatives and took advice on further course of action, which took some time. It was also submitted that thereafter the applicants met another advocate and explained about the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and sought for advised on further course of action. It was submitted that thereafter, the applicants consulted various advocates for preferring the First Appeal and in such process substantial time elapsed. Learned advocate has further submitted that thereafter, the applicants were informed about the court fees and other expenses, which were required to be borne for filing the First Appeal and in such process some further time was consumed. After arranging the required funds, all documents were handed over to a learned advocate for drafting and filing the appeal before this Court. However, some delay was also caused by the lawyer in drafting and filing the appeal. It was submitted that thereafter, after some time, the applicants enquired from the lawyer in respect of the appeal. However, as nothing was done by the concerned learned advocate, the applicants collected the brief from him as no appeal was prepared and filed. The applicants therefore, requested the learned advocate to return the papers.

C/CA/1423/2019 ORDER

Immediately, the applicants consulted another advocate for preferring the First Appeal, and, therefore, the delay is not because of willful or negligence on the part of the applicants and, therefore, it is requested that the same may be condoned in the interest of justice.

4. Though served none appears on behalf of the opponent Nos.3, 4 and 5.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the averments made in the application, since sufficient cause is shown and satisfactory explanation is given for condonation of delay, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause 6(a). The delay of 514 days in preferring the First Appeal is hereby condoned.

6. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry to delete the respondents No.1 and 2 accordingly.

Sd/-

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) VISHAL MISHRA