Kalubhai Jaglabhai Kalara vs Rameshchandra Ratanlal Kalal
2021 Latest Caselaw 13983 Guj

       C/CA/181/2020                                ORDER DATED: 14/09/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 181 of 2020

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 35780 of 2019

==========================================================
                         KALUBHAI JAGLABHAI KALARA
                                   Versus
                       RAMESHCHANDRA RATANLAL KALAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAL P DESAI(5505) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ISHITA V DESAI(5975) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS TASNIM A ZABUAWALA(10756) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                                Date : 14/09/2021

                                  ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. By this application, the applicant seeks to condone delay of 671 days which has taken place in preferring the First Appeal.

3. Passage of time in filling the appeal is explained by stating that during the pendency of the Motor Accident Claim Petition at Godhra, the advocate engaged by the applicant passed away and therefore the matter remained unattended and the judgment and award came to be passed. When the applicant enquired in May, 2019 about the status of matter, he came to know about passing of the judgment and award. Immediately, the applicant applied for certified copy, in which process time was consumed as the applicant was unaware about the process. After obtaining the certified copy and other relevant papers, the same were handed over to the advocate for preferring the appeal before this Court.

C/CA/181/2020 ORDER DATED: 14/09/2021

4. All the above factors and aspects resulted into passage of time. The delay occurred does not suggest any deliberate delay or indolent approach on part of the applicant. It is true that the delay of 671 days, however, it is not the length of delay but the nature of explanation which is relevant.

5. At the same time, looking to the extent of delay, it will balance the interest of the parties if the applicant is put to terms while condoning the delay. Therefore, it is provided that the applicant shall have to forgo the interest for the delayed period in the event he finally succeeds in the appeal. Learned advocate for the applicant fairly stated that the applicant is ready to forgo the interest.

6. In the facts of the case, it could be said that sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. The delay of 671 is condoned.

7. Civil Application stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI