Gujarat High Court
Vajir Vishnubhai Nagabhai vs Patel Jigneshkumar Naranbhai on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2111/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2111 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 10871 of 2025
==========================================================
VAJIR VISHNUBHAI NAGABHAI
Versus
PATEL JIGNESHKUMAR NARANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar appearing for the applicant,
Mr. Sunil B. Parikh learned advocate has entered his appearance
on behalf of respondent no. 2-Insurance Company. Despite service
of rule upon respondent nos. 1 and 3, no appearance has been
entered.
2. The 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 original claimants seeking condonation
of delay of 64 days caused in preferring the appeal. The attention
of this court is invited to the averments made in the application, it
is submitted that the delay caused in preferring the appeal is bona
fide and there was no malafide intention on part of the applicant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2111/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
claimants to not to approach in appeal within the stipulated period
of limitation. However, due to certain circumstances beyond their
control the delay has crept in. The reliance was placed on the
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Considering learned advocate Mr. Parikh appearing for the
opponent no. 2-Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the
aforesaid submissions as according to him. The circumstances
pointed out in the application does not meet with the criteria of
sufficient cause to consider the prayer for condonation of delay.
Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties in light of the averments made
in the application, it appears that though the impugned judgment
and award was pronounced on 10.10.2024, the certified copy was
made available on 23.10.2022. It is stated on oath by the applicant
that he approached the advocate in the month of November,2024
and at that time he realized that the amount of compensation has
been awarded on the lower side. The applicant has therefore
collected the papers from the advocate of the tribunal and had
decided to approach in appeal. It is further stated that the
applicant who hails from small village of Taluka-Vav, District-
Banaskantha, could come in contact with the advocate to the High
Court at Ahmedabad in the last week of December, 2022. Wherein
he was appraised about the procedure of appeal. The necessary
papers were immediately forwarded on 16.01.2025 and thereafter
the appeal was drafted and presented for admission on 20.01.2025.
Noticing the aforesaid submissions in absence of any contradiction
being pointed out, this Court is of the view that the sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2111/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
cause has been made out to consider the prayer for condonation of
delay as delay of 64 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby
condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
Parul Dutta
