Dipakbhai Shantilal Rathod vs Bhanvardas Muldas
2021 Latest Caselaw 454 Guj

          C/CA/1211/2020                                     ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1211 of 2020

                    In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 39975 of 2019

                                  With
                   R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1212 of 2020
                                  With
                   R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1213 of 2020
==========================================================
                       DIPAKBHAI SHANTILAL RATHOD
                                  Versus
                           BHANVARDAS MULDAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                             Date : 13/01/2021

                           COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the applicants and Ms. Kirti Pathak, learned advocate for the respondent No.3. Though served, none appears for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. By this applications, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 106 days which has occurred in preferring the first appeal.

3. It is stated by the learned advocate for the applicant that the impugned award / judgment was passed by the learned tribunal on 25.04.2019 and the certified copy of the same was received on 22.05.2019. Having obtained the certified copy, the applicant contacted

C/CA/1211/2020 ORDER

the advocate to prefer the appeal. It is further stated that the applicant was facing some financial difficulties regarding medical expenses and other educational expenses and therefore, at that time, he was not able to manage the fund towards the expenses of transportation, stamp duty and advocate fees. Having managed the same, the applicant approached the advocate and accordingly, the first appeals were filed.

4. The explanation rendered shows that there is no malafide intention on the part of the applicant in preferring the first appeals beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 106 days which has occurred in instituting the first appeals is condoned. The applications are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) MOHMMEDSHAHID