Gujarat High Court
V. R. Engineering vs Ashaben Wd/O Sureshbhai Somabhai Gamit on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4944/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4944 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 25581 of 2024
================================================================
V. R. ENGINEERING
Versus
ASHABEN WD/O SURESHBHAI SOMABHAI GAMIT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA(5766) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
seeking condonation of delay of 420 days caused in filing the
appeal.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the
applicant and learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia for respondent
No.6. Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3
and 5.
3. It is submitted that the challenge is made by the present
applicant is against the judgment and order directing the applicant
and respondent No.5 jointly and severally to pay the sum of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4944/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
compensation. It is contended that though the employees in
question were insured respondent No.2-Insurance Company,
learned Commissioner earred in holding the present applicant and
respondent No.6 negligent. Thereafter, a review application came
to be filed seeking reconsideration of the impugned award.
However, on 05.03.2024, learned Commissioner rejected the
review application and thereafter, the decision to challenge the
impugned judgment and award was taken by the applicant. It is
contended that because of the aforesaid reasons, appeal could not
filed within the prescribed period of limitation. There is no
malafide intention on the part of the applicant in challenging the
impugned judgment and award. The reasons assigned in the
application are sufficient to condone the delay.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent-Insurance
Company has objected in granting the application and submitted
that the reasons assigned in the application are not sufficient and
therefore, delay may not be condoned.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4944/2024 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
advocates for the parties and the averment made in the application,
it appears that after the passing of the impugned judgment and
award, the applicant filed review application seeking
reconsideration of the impugned judgment and award as the
contention of the applicant that the employees in question were
insured with respondent-Insurance Company but learned
Commissioner did not consider it and held applicant and
respondent No.6 liable. Review application came to be rejected on
05.03.2024 and thereafter, decision to challenge the impugned
judgment and award was taken and after consultation the appeal
was filed. It appears that the period of delay is huge and such huge
period of delay cannot be condoned without saddling with cost. To
balance the equity, the delay is condoned on a condition that
applicant shall deposit cost of Rs.5,000/- before the Legal Services
Authority of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order.
6. In view of the above, present application is allowed. Rule is
made absolute.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
