Gujarat High Court
Harishsinh @ Harishsinh Mavjibhai ... vs Rameshbhai Kesharbhai Jadhav on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1101/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1101 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4340 of 2025
==========================================================
HARISHSINH @ HARISHSINH MAVJIBHAI MAKWANA & ANR.
Versus
RAMESHBHAI KESHARBHAI JADHAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR. MITESH R RAVAL(17405) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. SANDEEP M SONI(17404) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the
applicants-original claimants.
2. Pursuant to the rule issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 07.03.2025, notice is reported to have been
duly effected upon the respondents. However, except for respondent
no.1-driver of the owner of, who is represented by learned advocate
Mr. Mitesh R. Raval with learned advocate Mr. Sandeep M. Soni, no
appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3
being the owner and the insurance company of the vehicle involved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1101/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
Despite sufficient opportunity being granted, in absence of any
appearance being entered by the aforesaid respondents, the present
application is taken up for hearing in their absence, with the assistance
of learned advocates on record for the respective parties.
3. The present application is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, at the instance of the original claimants praying for
conndonation of delay of 1332 days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the applicants has
drawn my attention to the averments made in the application, and has
submitted that the present applicants are the original claimants, who
intend to present their appeal for enhancement of amount of
compensation. Considering the benevolent scheme of the Act, the
Tribunal having failed to extend just and proper compensation, they
may not be deprived of their opportunity to satisfy this Court on
merits of the case. Learned advocate has, therefore, urged this Court
to take liberal approach and to condone the delay. Alternatively, it is
submitted that the interest for the interregnum period may not be
awarded.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1101/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Mr. Mitesh R. Raval with learned advocate Mr.
Sandeep M. Soni, though, have entered their appearance on behalf of
respondent no.1, have failed to appear and object to the present
application.
6. From the record, it transpires that no affidavit has been filed till
date on their behalf objecting to the prayer sought for in the present
application. This Court is, therefore, required to look into the
averments made in the application for the purpose of verifying the
sufficient cause, in order to consider their prayer for condonation of
delay.
7. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and award though
was pronounced on 17.03.2021 and the certified copy was received on
07.04.2021. The applicants were advised by their lawyer to approach
in appeal. In the month of June-2021, at that stage, the applicants
have realized that arrangement was required to be made towards the
legal expenses, to be incurred in filing the appeal. Since the amount of
compensation was awaited, the further time was consumed in
approaching in appeal. The applicants have received the compensation
only on 09.08.2021, and thus, they could gather the funds to meet
with legal expenses in the month of August-2021. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1101/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
submitted on oath that the advocate on record had opined to
challenge the impugned judgment and award, and the requirement of
certified copy, and accordingly, the appeal was drafted, and was
presented before the Registry of this Court in the month of May-2023
along with present application for condonation of delay, since the
delay had crept in.
8. Considering the aforesaid explanation offered and in absence
of any contradiction being brought on record against the aforesaid
averments being made on oath, this Court is inclined to accept the
aforesaid explanation to be a sufficient cause, which prevented the
applicants from approaching in appeal within stipulated period of
limitation. Noticing the number of days involved, in order to strike out
the balance, the present application seeking condonation of delay of
1332 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby accepted, subject
to condition that the applicants shall not be entitled to seek interest
for the aforesaid interregnum period of delay caused in preferring the
appeal.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the present Civil Application is
allowed. The delay of 1332 days caused in preferring the appeal, is
hereby condoned, on condition that the applicants shall not press for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1101/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
interest for the interregnum period of delay, in case, if they succeed in
main appeal.
10. With these observations, the present Civil Application stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/SFS/01/09
