Gujarat High Court
Smitaben Naginbhai Patel vs Caravan Project Logistics on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1673/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1673 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5716 of 2025
==========================================================
SMITABEN NAGINBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
CARAVAN PROJECT LOGISTICS & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the applicants- original claimants.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025, respondent no.2 has entered appearance through learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena. Notice has remained unserved qua respondent no.1, as not found at the given address, being the owner of the vehicle involved. However, considering the limited prayer sought for and the main appeal at the instance of the present applicants-original claimants confining to issue of quantum of compensation, the present application is taken up for hearing in absence of respondent no.1, with the assistance of learned advocates Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:53:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1673/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined 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 93 days caused in preferring the appeal.
4. Considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, in light of the averments made in the application, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered is plausible in the facts of the case.
5. 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 93 days caused in preferring the appeal, is hereby condoned. The Civil Application is allowed, and stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
6. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena appearing for the respondent no.2-Insurance Company in the main First Appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/SFS/02/09 Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 02 23:53:54 IST 2025