Dayaben Shankarbhai Expired vs Kishorbhai Vadilal
2021 Latest Caselaw 383 Guj

         C/CA/3702/2019                                   ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                 R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3702 of 2019

                   In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23099 of 2019

==========================================================
                    DAYABEN SHANKARBHAI EXPIRED
                               Versus
                         KISHORBHAI VADILAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                            Date : 12/01/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. G.C.Majmudar for the respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served with the rule of this Court, have chosen not to appear.

2. Delay of 231 days have taken place in preferring the captioned First Appeal who are original claimants seeking enhancement of the amount and compensation. It is to condone the said delay that the present application is filed.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the judgment and award was passed by Claims Tribunal on

C/CA/3702/2019 ORDER

30.8.2018. The application for obtaining the certified copy was given on 5.9.2018 and the copy became available on 10.9.2018.

4. Explaining the delay it was stated in the application that since the applicant was not aware about the legal intricacies to be followed in preferring the appeal and further that fund could be managed after some time it resulted into passage of time leading to delay to the aforesaid extent.

5. From the conduct of the applicant in applying the certified copy immediately, it could be gathered that there was intention to prefer the appeal from beginning. It is well settled that if some cause is shown to be bonafide for delay, the same should be approached with leniency in order that the litigant is enable to conduct its case on merits.

6. It could not be said that the reasons supplied to explain the delay of 231 days are not bonafide. Sufficient cause is made out. Delay of 231 days is condoned.

7. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Manshi