Gujarat High Court
Nureilahi Liyakat Nalla vs Akil Pyaarkha Pathan on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1841 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 7539 of 2025
==========================================================
NUREILAHI LIYAKAT NALLA
Versus
AKIL PYAARKHA PATHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the
applicant-original claimant. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar has
entered her appearance on behalf of respondent no.3-Insurance
Company.
2. Rule issued by this Court upon respondent nos.1 and 2, is
reported to have been duly served. However, no appearance has been
entered on their behalf. Looking to the prayer sought for in the
present application, the present application is taken up for hearing in
their absence.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
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 906 days caused in preferring the
appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
impugned judgment dismissing the claim petition was pronounced on
06.09.2023. He has further pointed out that the applicant had sought
legal advise about the legal remedy available, whereby, he was
advised to approach before this Court. The applicant has, therefore,
immediately approached the advocate practicing in High Court, and
handed over Vakalatnama on 06.11.2023. Learned advocate has
further pointed out that the applicant, at that stage, was made aware
about the legal expenses, to be incurred including the court fees,
which was provided on 30.12.2023. The certified copy of the judgment
was handed over to the advocate of the High Court on 12.01.2024.
Learned advocate has further pointed out that initially the writ
petition was preferred before this Court, which was registered as
Special Civil Application No.17405 of 2024. The aforesaid matter was
notified for admission hearing before the Co-ordinate Bench on
12.02.2025, whereby the Court had permitted the learned advocate
representing the pettioner to withdraw the said petition with a liberty
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
to file First Appeal. The Court had also observed that since the
petitioner was litigating before the wrong forum, the Court may
consider extending benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
in the facts of the case. Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted
that having approached by way of present appeal in the month of
March-2025, the time consumed in pursuing the petition, in light of
the writ petition being moved on earlier occasion, the same may be
excluded for the purpose of considering the number of days of delay
arosed in presenting the appeal. By making aforesaid submissions, he
has, therefore, urged this Court to accept the explanation offered,
and to condone the delay.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar appearing for the
respondent no.3-Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the
aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for the applicant. She has
pointed out that considering the explanation offered, it cannot be
treated as a sufficient cause to take liberal view to condone the delay.
However, she has alternatively submitted that in case, if the Court is
inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation offered, suitable
conditions be imposed with regard to waiver of interest for the
aforesaid interregnum period of delay caused in preferring the appeal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates for
the respective parties, in light of the averments made in the
application and noticing the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench, while disposing the writ petition, this Court is of the
view that the applicant is the original claimant, who intends to pursue
the remedy of appeal. The claim petition preferred by the applicant,
has been dismissed for default, in absence of learned advocate
representing the applicant and noticing the fact that for substantial
period, the claimant has failed to lead the evidence before the
Tribunal. In absence of contradictions being pointed out, the fact that
after the impugned judgment of dismissing the claim petition was
pronounced, the advocate on record for the appellant had informed
about such order being passed to the applicant only on 06.09.2023,
remains uncontroverted. The certified copy of the impugned
judgment placed along with the First Appeal indicates that the same
was applied for and received in the month of September-2023. Hence,
this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation offered by
the applicant to be sufficient cause which prevented the applicant
from approaching this Court within stipulated period of limitation. As
regards the time being consumed in pursing the matter, whereby,
erroneously the judgment was assailed under the nomenclature of
writ petition and having realized the aforesaid mistake, the permission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1841/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
being obtained from the Co-ordinate Bench to move in appeal, this
Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation being offered to
be a sufficient cause for the further time being consumed in pursuing
the matter before the wrong forum. Hence, the benefit of Section 14
of the Limitation Act is required to be extended. It appears from the
record that appeal was presented along with delay condonation
application on 05.03.2025. For the foregoing reasons, considering the
aforesaid dates and looking to the explanation offered, the delay of
906 days caused in preferring the appeal, deserves consideration, and
is hereby condoned. The Civil Application is allowed, and stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
7. As regards the interest is concerned, it would be open for the
respondent- Insurance Company to agitate the issue of delay in the
main appeal.
8. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate
Ms. Karuna Rahevar representing the respondent no.3-Insurance
Company in the main appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
