Gujarat High Court
Nasimaben Mayudinbhai @ Mayodinbhai vs Rajubhai Dilavarbhai on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 942 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17865 of 2023
======================================
NASIMABEN MAYUDINBHAI @ MAYODINBHAI & ORS.
Versus
RAJUBHAI DILAVARBHAI & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,5,6
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 09/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate on record for the applicants.
2. Pursuant to notice of rule issued by this Court vide order
dated 14th February, 2025, respondent no.3 has entered
appearance through Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty, learned
advocate. Rule has been duly served upon the respondent
nos.2, 4, 5 & 6, however, they have chosen not to appear and
contest the matter. Rule is unserved qua respondent no.1.
Considering the number of days of delay involved, the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM
undefined
application is taken-up for hearing, in absence of the said
respondents, with the assistance of learned advocates on
record for the respective parties.
3. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying for condonation of delay of 1105
days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. The explanation offered as referred in Para-3, it appears
that impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 12 th
March, 2020. Initially, the claimants have not applied in
appeal being contend with the amount of compensation.
However, as submitted by the learned advocate for applicant,
they were served with notice of admission dated 10 th April,
2023 passed in First Appeal no.1311 of 2023, preferred by the
insurance company assailing impugned judgment and award.
The applicants have approached to seek legal advice of
advocate whereby they were guided to prefer appeal. The
applicants have applied for certified copy of the impugned
judgments and award on 13th June, 2023, which was delivered
on 17th June, 2023. It is averred on oath that appeal could not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM
undefined
be preferred within stipulated period of limitation as the
applicants were not aware about the legal intricacies involved
and were also required to manage funds for legal expenses.
5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid explanation
offered. It is settled legal position that appellate Courts are
conferred jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond prescribed
period of limitation under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963,
where sufficient cause is made-out which prevented the
applicant to apply in appeal within stipulated period of
limitation. Considering the aforesaid explanation offered on
the touchstone of bonafides or due diligence of applicants, it
cannot be construed that the applicants conducted themselves
in gross negligent manner. On the contrary, if the applicants
would have choose recourse of filing the cross-objection, then,
the delay would have been for few days only.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates
for the respective parties and the explanation offered in the
present application, this Court is of the view that the
explanation offered is plausible in the facts of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/942/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2025 12:31:30 PM
undefined
7. Considering the benevolent legislation and taking liberal
view, this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid
submissions to be a sufficient cause for the purpose of
considering the prayer for condonation of delay. Hence, the
delay of 1105 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby
condoned. The Civil Application stand allowed. Rule made
absolute.
8. Registry is directed to reflect the name of Ms. Masumi
Nanavaty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent
no.3 in the main First Appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.)
AMAR RATHOD...sfs/10.09
