Chinnaben Kanjibhai Chaudhary vs Dipakbhai Dhirubhai Chaudhary
2021 Latest Caselaw 14338 Guj

       C/CA/1449/2019                                       ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1449 of 2019
                         In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16673 of 2019
==========================================================
                         CHINNABEN KANJIBHAI CHAUDHARY
                                      Versus
                         DIPAKBHAI DHIRUBHAI CHAUDHARY
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
VIDIT S SHARMA(7365) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                               Date : 17/09/2021

                                   ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. For condonation of delay of 960 days the present application is filed. By the applicants- original claimants.

3. Delay is occurred in preferring First Appeal which is directed against judgment and award dated 24th June, 2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajpipla in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.302 of 2015.

4. The passage of time leading to the above delay is explained by stating that papers were sent to the advocate for filing appeal in November, 2016, however they did not hear anything from the advocate for quite long. Therefore, they had to engage another advocate as the advocate earlier engaged failed to

C/CA/1449/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

give any satisfactory details about the status of the appeal to be filed.

4.1 It appears that certified copy was applied again through advocate, court fees amount was arranged and funds were also collected for other legal expenses. The appeal was thereafter preferred which led to delay of 960 days.

5. Undisputedly, delay is long. However, it is the bona fide nature of reason and not the length of the delay which should matter. It is trite that for inaction or fault on part of the advocate, litigant should not suffer. When the applicants were required to change advocate, any negligence could not be attributed on their part. Sufficient cause can be said to have been made out which explain the delay.

5.1 At the same time, looking to the length of the delay, it would be proper to put the applicants to some terms by disentitling them from claiming interest. In this regard, learned advocate Mr.Nishit Bhalodi for the applicants fairly stated that applicants are ready to forgo the interest for the delayed period in the event they succeed in their appeal.

6. In the aforesaid view, delay of 960 days is condoned, by providing however that the applicants shall not be entitled to claim interest for the delayed period of 960 days if they succeed in their First Appeal.

C/CA/1449/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

7. This application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) ANUP