Hasmukhbhai Punjabhai Parmar vs Kantibhai Trikambhai Patel
2021 Latest Caselaw 3858 Guj

               C/CA/2750/2020                           ORDER




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2750 of 2020

             In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24829 of 2020

============================================
            HASMUKHBHAI PUNJABHAI PARMAR
                              Versus
              KANTIBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL
============================================
Appearance:
MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
VIJAY H PATEL(7361) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                Date : 05/03/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Karna H. Dhomse for the applicant, learned Advocate Shri Vijay H. Patel for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Ms. Kirti S. Pathak for respondent No.4.

2. By way of this application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 423 days, which has occurred in filing First Appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara at Savli, in MACP No.1344 of 2015 dated 08.05.2019.

3. Learned Advocate Shri Dhomse submits that after passing of the impugned judgment and award, Adcocate for the applicant has applied for certified copy and whereas after obtaining certified copy, the learned Advocate had written a letter to the applicant and thereafter, the applicant

C/CA/2750/2020 ORDER

had met the concerned learned Advocate. He further submits that at the relevant point of time, the applicant had no sources of fund to prefer appeal and therefore, substantial time has been elapsed in arranging the expenses for preferring present Appeal. Under such circumstances, learned Advocate submits that the delay that has occurred, may be condoned by this Court.

4. Learned Advocate Shri Pathak for the respondent No.4 has strongly opposed this application and submits that gross delay is occurred in filing First Appeal and the same remains unexplained.

5. Learned Advocate Shri Patel also opposes this application and submits that the delay may not be condoned.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the applicant and considering the averments made in the application, more particularly, at para 5 of the application, this Court is of the opinion that the delay has been sufficiently explained and therefore, delay of 223 days in preferring First Appeal against the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara at Savli, in MACP No.1344 of 2015 dated 08.05.2019 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS