Gujarat High Court
Ilaben Ashokbhai Rohit vs Chauhan Sanjaysinh Takhatsinh on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2982/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2982 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 15329 of 2025
==========================================================
ILABEN ASHOKBHAI ROHIT & ORS.
Versus
CHAUHAN SANJAYSINH TAKHATSINH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR GIRISH M DAS(2323) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the
applicants-original claimants. Learned advocate Mr. Girish M. Das has
entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, and learned
advocate Ms. Kirti Pathak has entered appearance on behalf of
respondent no.3-Insurance Company.
2. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act praying for condonation of delay of 648 days caused in preferring
the Cross-Objection, against the judgment and award dated
11.11.2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Anand in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2982/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
M.A.C.P. No.706 of 2011, wherein the respondent no.3-Insurance
Company has approached in appeal being registered as First Appeal
No.1310 of 2023.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants, at the outset, has
submitted that the aforesaid appeal of the Insurance Company,
though, has been admitted vide order dated 13.04.2023, and the
applicants were reminded of the availability of the entire set of papers
to be forwarded to the advocate on record. The applicants, in absence
of the papers, were unable to forward the same. Learned advocate has
further referred to the averments made in the application, and has
submitted that the applicant could ultimately collect the papers and
forward the same to the advocate on 24.03.2025. It is only after going
through the entire set of papers, learned advocate on record had
opined that the applicants are required to apply for enhancement of
compensation, as the income of the deceased was not properly
appreciated by the Tribunal. He has further submitted that time was
further consumed in arranging the funds to meet with legal expenses
including the Court Fees, which could be arranged by 30.03.2025.In
the interregnum, delay of 648 days had crept in.
3.1 By referring to the aforesaid circumstances, learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2982/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
has submitted that there was no mala fide intention to delay the
proceedings on part of the present applicants. In fact, they intend to
present their case on merits by preferring the cross-objections to seek
enhancement of amount of compensation. This Court was reminded of
the object of the beneficial legislation. Learned advocate has,
therefore, urged this Court to take liberal view, and to condone the
delay.
4. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents
have vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions, as according
to them, the explanation offered cannot be treated as sufficient
cause, which prevented them from applying in cross-objections
immediately after the admission of appeal. They have, therefore,
urged this Court to not entertain the present application.
Alternatively, they have urged this Court to direct the waiver of
interest, noticing the huge number of days of delay involved in
preferring the Cross-Objection.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates for
the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the
application, which are made on oath, and in absence of any
contradictory facts being pointed out by the respondents, this Court is
inclined to accept the aforesaid submissions tendered by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2982/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
applicants, to be a sufficient cause, which prevented the applicants to
take a final decision to apply in appeal. In the process, the delay has
crept in. Further time appears to have been consumed in arranging for
the funds. It appears from the record that this Court, vide order dated
03.07.2023, had permitted disbursement of 30% of the deposited
award amount. The applicants were, therefore, in receipt of the
amount. However, considering the fact that the applicants intend to
present their case on merit for enhancement of amount of
compensation and noticing the benevolent legislation, which intends
to provide just and reasonable compensation, this Court is inclined to
exercise the discretion to condone the delay. Hence, delay of 648 days
caused in preferring the Cross-Objection, is condoned, on condition
that applicants shall not be entitled to the interest on the additional
amount of compensation, for this interregnum period of delay, in case,
if they succeed in the Cross-Objection.
6. With these observations, the Civil Application is allowed, and
stands disposed of.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
