Gujarat High Court
Gurdevsingh Hirasingh Chihar vs Sukhmitsingh Barasingh Jatt on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/CA/2067/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2067 of 2020
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3866 of 2020
==========================================================
GURDEVSINGH HIRASINGH CHIHAR
Versus
SUKHMITSINGH BARASINGH JATT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 10/03/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for the applicant and
learned Advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavti for learned Advocate Mr. Dakshesh
Mehta for the opponent No.3.
2. By way of this application the applicant has prayed for condoning the
delay of 678 days occurred in filing the captioned First Appeal against the
judgment and award dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned M.A.C.
Tribunal (Auxi-2)), Gandhidham-Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No. 378 of 2000.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that after
having received the certified copy of the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Tribunal, the applicant had approached his advocate
who had appeared on his behalf before the learned Tribunal and since the
said Advocate was not keeping well, the applicant met him only in the
month of September 2019 and whereas he was advised to approach this
C/CA/2067/2020 ORDER
Court to file an appeal and it is on these grounds, the captioned appeal
could not be preferred in time. Learned Advocate for the applicant further
submits that while this Court may give a reasonable period over and above
the period of limitation fixed by the statute as a benchmark period and the
applicant is ready and willing to waive the interest upon the enhanced
amount, if any, for the remaining period.
4. As against the same, learned Advocate Ms. Masumi Nanavti for the
opponent No.3 has strongly opposed this application by submitting that the
delay in filing the captioned appeal is inordinate and whereas no explanation
has been given for condoning the same.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates for the
parties, this Court is of the opinion that reasonable cause has been made out
for condoning the delay and whereas some further direction would be
required to balance the equity between the parties. Hence, the delay of 678
days occurred in filing the captioned First Appeal against the judgment and
award dated 19.12.2017 passed by the learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Auxi-2)),
Gandhidham-Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No. 378 of 2000, is condoned on the
condition that the period of delay after 250 days from the date of the
judgment and award of the learned Tribunal shall not be counted for the
purpose of receiving interest upon the enhanced compensation, if any.
6. With the above observation and direction, this application is allowed.
Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
