Gujarat High Court
Ojas Jyotishbhai Vora vs Nirmalsinh Jadeja on 28 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1547/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1547 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 34318 of 2024
==========================================================
OJAS JYOTISHBHAI VORA
Versus
NIRMALSINH JADEJA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate on record for the
applicant- original claimant. Learned advocate Mr. Tanmay B. Karia has
entered his appearance on behalf of respondent no.2-S.T. Corporation.
Notice issued by this Court upon respondent no.1 being the driver of
the S.T. Bus, is reported to have been duly served. However, no
appearance has been entered on his behalf.
2. 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 1778 days caused in preferring
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1547/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
the appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has invited my attention to
the averments made in the application, and has submitted that though
the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 23.10.2019,
the amount being realized in the month of January-2021, the
applicant who is otherwise engaged in the office work and extends his
services in a Social Service Group, was unable to approach in appeal
within the stipulated period of time, because of his engagement. He
has further submitted that the applicant had, in fact, provided the
case papers to the Trial Court's advocate with a belief that the appeal
would be preferred. However, despite his instructions, it was later on
learnt that the appeal has not been submitted. He has further pointed
out that further affidavit filed on 27.06.2025 reiterating the fact that
because of oversight, the appeal of the applicant was not submitted
and it was only when the applicant had contacted the Trial Court's
advocate on 20.11.2024, the applicant came across the fact that no
appeal has been filed, till date.
3.1 By referring to the aforesaid circumstances, learned advocate
has further submitted that the applicant being the original claimant
intends to pursue the remedy of appeal to seek enhancement of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1547/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
amount of compensation. He has relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority
vs Jagan Singh & Ors. reported in 2023 SAR (Civil) 921 (Neutral
Citation: 2023 INSC 620), and has submitted that the applicant is
agreeable to waive the interest for the interregnum period of delay, in
case, if he succeeds in appeal. He has, therefore, urged this Court to
condone the delay.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia appearing for
the respondent no.2-S.T. Corporation has vehemently objected to the
aforesaid submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant.
Referring to the explanation offered, learned advocate has submitted
that the same cannot be treated as a sufficient cause, in order to
exercise the discretion by this Court to condone the delay.
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and having perused the averments made in the application and the
further affidavit filed by the applicant, it is evident that only
explanation, which is offered by the applicant, is the fact that the
papers, which were handed over by the applicant to prefer an appeal,
the advocate of the Trial Court has failed to file the appeal before this
Court, and it was only in the month of November-2024, when the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1547/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
applicant inquired about the status of appeal, he came across the fact
that no appeal has been filed. The aforesaid fact has been stated on
oath, which has not been controverted by the respondent by filing any
affidavit. Taking liberal view, more particularly, noticing the object of
benevolent legislation, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion
to condone the delay. Hence, delay of 1778 days caused in preferring
the appeal, is hereby condoned. However to strike out the balance,
noticing the huge number of days of delay involved, the delay is
condoned subject to condition that the applicant shall not be entitled
to any interest for interregnum period of delay caused in preferring
the appeal, in the event, the applicant succeeds in appeal.
6. With these observations, present Civil Application stands
disposed of.
7. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Mr.
Tanmay Karia representing the respondent no.2 in the main appeal as
well.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
