Gujarat High Court High Court

Alpeshkumar vs Mehulkumar on 9 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Alpeshkumar vs Mehulkumar on 9 April, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CA/869/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 869 of 2010
 

In


 

FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 5701 of 2009
 

 
=========================================================

 

ALPESHKUMAR
LAXMISHANKAR RAVAL - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

MEHULKUMAR
BABULAL VAKHARIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
VAIBHAV N SHETH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 09/04/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

Rule.

Learned advocate Ms. Fozdar for learned advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta
waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent no.3.

Heard
learned advocate Mr. V. N. Sheth appearing for the applicant and
learned advocate Ms. Fozdar for learned advocate Mr. S. N. Mehta
appearing for respondent no.3. Though served, no one has entered
appearance for respondent nos.1 and 2.

With
consent of learned advocates for the contesting parties, the matter
is taken up for hearing and final decision today.

Present
application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by
the applicant seeking condonation of delay of 68 days in filing the
appeal against the judgment and award dated 28/5/2009 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Himmatnagar in MACP No.1052 of 2008.

Having
regard to the submissions made by learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the applicant and averments made in the application, it
emerges that the applicant was not negligent in filing the appeal,
however, due to unavoidable circumstances beyond his control, the
delay has occurred. The applicant has given satisfactory explanation
and has made out sufficient cause to grant the relief prayed for in
para-6(B) of the application.

In
view of the above, the relief prayed for in para-6(B) of the
application is granted. The delay of 68 days in filing the appeal is
condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(K.M.THAKER,
J.)

(ila)

   

Top