Gujarat High Court
M/S Moorthi Engineering Works Through ... vs Tulsi Harji Maheshwari Sinch on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4074/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4074 of 2025
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20047 of 2025
=============================================
M/S MOORTHI ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH ITS PROP.
KAMBALA SIKHAGRA MOORTHI
Versus
TULSI HARJI MAHESHWARI SINCH & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AMAN A SAMA(11691) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Hemal Shah, learned advocate for the
applicant- original appellant. Mr. Aman Sama, learned
advocate has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent
no.1 and Mr. Yogi Gadhia, learned advocate has also
instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent no.2 who
had initially assisted the Court in the main proceedings, being
served with the advance copy are heard.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly relied
upon the averments made in the application and has
submitted that the applicant had availed remedy of appeal by
preferring Special Leave to Petition being SLP No.14921 of
2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the
judgment passed in the main appeal. Considering the
submissions of the learned advocate for the applicant about
the document in the nature of supplementary term of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4074/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
policy of Insurance being produced for the first time and
subsequent realization of the Insurance Policy, the permission
to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to apply in
review was sought for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the
first date of hearing vide order dated 23.05.2025 was pleased
to dispose of the said petition with further liberty to apply in
review before this Court. Learned advocate has further invited
my attention to the further direction issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, whereby, the judgment assailed sought to be
reviewed in the present proceedings has been kept in
abeyance for a period of six weeks thereafter. Learned
advocate has submitted that the applicant has promptly
approached in review inasmuch as the application for review
was affirmed on 19.06.2025 and was submitted before the
Registry of this Court on 24.06.2025, however, Registry
considering the date of certified copy of the judgment has
raised objection with regard to delay caused in preferring the
review application. He has therefore, submitted that the
aforesaid office objection was promptly removed and
appropriate application seeking condonation of delay was
submitted before the Registry on 24.07.2025. Noticing the
aforesaid dates, the Registry has considered the delay of 79
days.
2.1. Referring to the aforesaid events, learned advocate has
submitted that all throughout the applicant was pursuing the
remedy available in law. Hence, there was no inaction or
gross negligency on the part of the applicant to not to
approach this Court in review within stipulated period of
limitation. He has therefore, urged this Court to take liberal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4074/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
view and to condone the delay. Reliance was also placed
reliance on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to contend
that the time spent before wrong forum with bona fide intents
is required to be set off while considering the period of
limitation.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sama appearing for the
respondent no.1 - original applicant workman has vehemently
objected to the aforesaid submission and has urged this Court
to not to exercise discretion and to condone the delay. He has
pointed out that the judgment and order was pronounced by
this Court in the main appeal on 17.03.2025 and despite the
specific direction of deposit of the award amount being issued,
till date no amount has been deposited so far. He has further
pointed out that in fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
staying the impugned order for six weeks has permitted the
applicant to approach in review, however the same was
required to be persuaded within the prescribed period of
limitation. Thereafter, the applicant having failed to do so, this
Court may not entertain the present application.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhia appearing for the
respondent no.2 has supported the aforesaid submissions
made by the learned advocate for the respondent no.1.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and having perused the
averments made in the application, considering the fact that
after the judgment was pronounced in the month of March
2025, indisputably the applicant was pursuing the remedy of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4074/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
appeal inasmuch as the Special Leave Petition was preferred
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ultimately, admission
hearing of the Special Leave Petition was notified on
23.5.2025 and on the first date of hearing, noticing the terms
and conditions of the policy being not placed for consideration
before this Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted
the applicant to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with a
liberty to apply in review before this Court and impugned
judgment and award being kept in abeyance for a period of six
weeks thereafter. Noticing the relevant dates as indicated by
the learned advocate for the applicant, it cannot be construed
that the applicant was grossly negligent in not preferring the
proceeding within stipulated period of limitation. Considering
the overall circumstances brought on record, this Court is
inclined to exercise its discretion. Hence, delay of 79 days
caused in preferring the review application is hereby
condoned. Present application stands allowed.
6. At this stage, learned advocate for the applicant prays
for circulation of the review application since the applicant is
facing execution proceedings. Considering the aforesaid
request of the learned advocate for the applicant, let review
application be registered and notified for admission hearing
on 12.09.2025.
7. With these observations, present application stands
disposed of.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH/sfs./9/9/25
