Gujarat High Court
Kanti Murji Siyani vs L H Of Decd Late Alimamad Musahai Ruknani on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2900 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 15662 of 2025
==========================================================
KANTI MURJI SIYANI
Versus
L H OF DECD LATE ALIMAMAD MUSAHAI RUKNANI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KULDEEP J MEHTA(8571) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH(3093) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates on record for the respective parties.
2. Considering the number of days of delay involved, the present
application is taken up for hearing.
3. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
praying for condonation of delay of 526 days caused in preferring the
appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent no.3-Insurance Company
has mainly relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed through Legal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
Manager. It is vehemently submitted that the explanation offered
cannot be treated as sufficient cause to consider their prayer for
condonation of delay. The reference was made to the legal position to
contend that indolent litigant could not get sympathy and delay
caused due to laxity of litigant is deprecated and would not constitute
sufficient cause. He has, therefore, urged this Court to dismiss the
present application. Though, learned advocate for the respondent-
Insurance Company has disputed the aforesaid explanation offered;
however, has been unable to contradict the aforesaid facts stated on
oath by the applicant that the knowledge of the judgment and award
was derived only when the warrant was served in execution
proceedings.
5. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the
respective parties and in light of the averments made in the
application, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered is
plausible in the facts of the case.
6. Considering the explanation offered, it appears that the
applicant is the owner of the offending vehicle, and the claim petition
was directed ex parte, in absence of the applicant having participated
in the proceedings before the Tribunal under the belief that the
vehicle is insured with the opponent-Insurance Company, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
therefore, their interest is sufficiently represented. However, the
applicant became aware about the impugned judgment and award
dated 20.08.2023 being passed by the Tribunal only when the warrant
was issued in the Execution Petition No.24 of 2025 filed by the
Insurance Company seeking recovery of the amount paid to the
claimants. It is contended that the applicant immediately applied for
certified copy on 08.04.2025, which was received by them on
11.04.2025. Considering the aforesaid explanation offered and
noticing the ground raised in the appeal memo, whereby the applicant
intends to establish his case being covered under the insurance
coverage and issue of holding valid and effective license, this Court is
inclined to exercise the discretion to condone the delay caused in
preferring the appeal. However, noticing the fact that the applicant
was not diligent in pursuing the proceedings before the Tribunal, the
delay is condoned subject to deposit of costs of Rs.50,000/-. Hence,
the delay of 526 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby
condoned, subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- with the District Legal
Services Authority, Kachchh within a period of one week from today.
7. At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the applicant
prays for appropriate directions to Registry to notify the First Appeal
for admission hearing, as he is facing execution.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2900/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
8. Considering the aforesaid request, Registry is directed to
register the First Appeal, and notify the same for admission hearing on
04.08.2025.
9. Registry is also directed to reflect the name of learned advocate
Mr. Dhairyawan D. Bhatt appearing for respondent no.3-Insurance
Company in the main appeal as well.
10. With these observations, the Civil Application is allowed, and
stands disposed of.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
