Owner - V K Patel Civil Engineering ... vs Ramanbhai Savjibhai Bariya
2022 Latest Caselaw 1374 Guj

     C/CA/2705/2020                                 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2705 of 2020

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23978 of 2020

==========================================================
        OWNER - V K PATEL CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR
                              Versus
                  RAMANBHAI SAVJIBHAI BARIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR MIHIRKUMAR V PATEL(10112) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHIVANGI J GUPTA(10542) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                                Date : 07/02/2022

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. This is an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act to condone delay of 1401 days occurred in

preferring appeal to assail judgment and order of the

Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation, Dahod.

2. I have heard Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the

applicants and Ms. Shivangi J. Gupta, learned advocate

for the respondent.

3. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the applicants

submits that the dispute between the applicants and

C/CA/2705/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

respondent was amicably settled. He further submits that

sum of Rs.5,96,596/- is paid to the respondent pursuant to

the settlement. He submits that the respondent has

submitted withdrawal purshis with the Commissioner for

withdrawal of his application, however, the same was

rejected. He, further submits that the applicants have

paid more amount than the awarded compensation.

According to his application the applicants did not

participate in the proceedings before the Commissioner

as they were under bonafide impression that the

respondent would withdraw the proceedings. He,

therefore, urges that the delay may be condoned.

4. Ms. Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent has

strongly resisted this application. She submits that the

delay is not properly explained. According to her

submission, the learned advocate for the applicants had

in fact sought time on 18.8.2013 which was granted by

the Commissioner. She, therefore, submits that the story

of the settlement between the applicants and the

respondent is concocted and the respondent has not

C/CA/2705/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

received any amount against the so called settlement. She

therefore, urges that the delay may not be condoned.

5. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed

by both the sides.

6. Prima facie, it appears that the applicants did not

participate in the proceedings before the Commissioner

as they were under impression that the respondent would

withdraw the proceedings in light of the settlement

between them. Whether in fact the settlement had arrived

at between the parties and whether applicants have paid

any amount to the respondent pursuant to the settlement

is the subject matter on merits, which can be considered

at the time of hearing of the appeal.

7. However, considering the overall facts and

circumstances of the case when the applicants assert that

the there was a settlement and the payment was made to

the respondent pursuant to the settlement, I am of the

view that the applicants have made out a case for

condoning the delay which has occurred in preferring the

C/CA/2705/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/02/2022

first appeal.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds

and is hereby allowed. The delay of 1401 days which has

occurred in preferring appeal to assail judgment and

order of the Commissioner is hereby condoned.

9. The application stands disposed of. Rule made

absolute.

(A.G.URAIZEE, J) SURESH SOLANKI