Gujarat High Court
Jethalal Babulal Bhanushali vs Jagdishkumar Rameshbhai Bhadra ... on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2082/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2082 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9801 of 2025
==========================================================
JETHALAL BABULAL BHANUSHALI
Versus
JAGDISHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI BHADRA (BHANUSHALI) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the
applicant-original claimant.
2. Pursuant to the rule issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 15.04.2025, notice is reported to have been
duly effected upon the respondents. However, except for respondent
no.3-Insurance Company, who is represented by learned advocate Mr.
G.C. Mazmudar with learned advocate Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, no
appearance has been entered on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2.
Despite sufficient opportunity being granted, in absence of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2082/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
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 616 days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the applicant has
drawn my attention to the averments made in the application, and has
submitted that the present applicant is the original claimant, who
intends to present his appeal for enhancement of amount of
compensation. Considering the benevolent scheme of the Act, the
Tribunal having failed to extend just and proper compensation, he
may not be deprived of the 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.
5. Learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar with learned advocate Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2082/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
H.G. Mazmudar, though, have entered their appearance on behalf of
respondent no.3-Insurance Company, 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 the prayer for condonation of
delay.
7. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and award though
was pronounced on 10.04.2023 and the certified copy was received on
19.04.2023. The applicant was advised by his lawyer to approach in
appeal. At that stage, the applicant has realized that arrangement was
required to be made towards the legal expenses, to be incurred in
filing the appeal. The applicant could gather the funds to meet with
legal expenses in the month of September-2023.
8. Considering the explanation offered in Para-3 of the present
application and in absence of any contradiction being brought on
record against the aforesaid averments being made on oath, this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2082/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation to be a sufficient
cause, which prevented the applicant 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 616 days caused in preferring the
appeal, is hereby accepted, subject to condition that the applicant
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 616 days caused in preferring the appeal, is
hereby condoned, on condition that the applicant shall not press for
interest for the interregnum period of delay, in case, if he 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/02/09
