Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Manubhai Parmar vs Divyeshbhai Narsinhbhai Chavda on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/925/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
925 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 32564 of 2023
=============================================
HANSABEN MANUBHAI PARMAR & ANR.
Versus
DIVYESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate for the
applicants. Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate has entered
his appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2 Insurance
Company. Despite the service of notice of Rule upon the
respondent no.1, no appearance has been entered.
Considering the limited prayers prayed for in the present
application, application is taken up for final hearing in their
absence.
2. Present application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 at the instance of the applicants- original claimants
praying for condonation of delay of 458 days caused in
preferring the appeal.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants has mainly relied
upon the averments made in the application and has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/925/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
submitted that the time was consumed in seeking legal advise
to avail remedy of appeal and having decided so, the
applicants were made aware about the legal expenses to be
incurred, which led to further time being consumed to make
arrangement in this regard. By referring to the aforesaid
averments, the learned advocate has submitted that there was
no mala fide intention or lack of any bona fide to approach in
appeal after stipulated period of limitation. He has further
submitted that looking to the benevolent legislation, non
entertaining of the present application on the technical
ground of delay may take away the right of the applicants to
pursue their legal remedy to present their case for
enhancement on merits. He has therefore, urged this Court to
take liberal view and to condone the delay.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the respondent no.2-
Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the aforesaid
submissions. According to learned advocate, no sufficient
cause has been made out, more particularly, by contending
that the impugned judgment and award relates to 2022.
Thereafter, the Insurance Company ha deposited the
aforesaid amount and no appeal has been preferred against
the aforesaid impugned judgment and award. In such
circumstances, this Court may not entertain the application
seeking condonation of delay of huge number of days of 458.
However, he has urged this Court that in case if the Court is
inclined to accept the prayer for condonation of delay,
suitable condition may be imposed as regards the waiver of
interest for the interregnum period of delay for no fault of the
Insurance, they may not be saddled with the liability to pay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/925/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
interest on the enhanced amount of compensation, in case if
they succeed in appeal.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned
advocates for the respective parties, in light of the averments
made in the application, the Court is of the view that not
entertaining the application at this stage of the condonation of
delay would take away right of the applicants who are original
claimants to present their case for enhancement of the
amount of compensation in appeal. Looking at the benevolent
legislation and considering the explanation offered, this Court
is inclined to accept the prayer sought for in the present
application in order to strike out the balance. Noticing the
huge number of days involved, the delay of 458 days caused in
preferring the appeal is hereby condoned on condition that
the applicants shall not be entitled to interest for the
interregnum period of delay of 458 days caused in preferring
the appeal, in case if their appeal accepted on merits for
enhancement of amount of compensation. Let copy of this
order be placed on record in First Appeal as well. Present
application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH
