PATEL HITENDRABHAI VITTHALBHAIversusRAJNIKANT BALVANTSINH DODIYA
- Disposal
- 33-CA DISPOSED OF
- Bench
- MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Holding
The Court held that the 195‑day delay is condoned and the application is allowed.
Summary
The petitioner, Patel, filed an application seeking condonation of a 195‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application was made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner argued that the delay was unavoidable and requested a liberal approach to allow enhancement of compensation. The Court considered the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. MST Katiji & Ors. regarding condonation of delay. Finding the grounds pleaded sufficient, the Court allowed the amendment and granted condonation of delay without any order as to costs. No order as to costs was made.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 195 days in filing an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the grounds pleaded satisfy the criteria laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. MST Katiji for condonation of delay
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
- Motor Vehicles Acts. 173(1)
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/3347/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3347 of
2026
In F/FIRST APPEAL/21524/2026
==========================================================
PATEL HITENDRABHAI VITTHALBHAI
Versus
RAJNIKANT BALVANTSINH DODIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NILAY H PATEL(7856) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 06/08/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment stands allowed. The same shall be
carried out forthwith.
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant. Noticing the
limited prayer sought for in the present application, the same
is taken up for hearing at admission stage without issuance of
notice upon the respondents.
3. Present application is preferred under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act praying for condonation of delay of 195 days caused in
preferring the appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant - original claimant
has relied upon the averments made in the instant application
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/3347/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026
and submitted that the appeal could not be presented within
the prescribed period of limitation. Learned advocate for the
applicant further submitted that looking to the benevolent
piece of legislation, the applicant intends to present his case
for enhancement of the compensation. Learned advocate for
the applicant has therefore, urged this Court to take liberal
view and condone the delay.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the applicant and in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector,
Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors.
[AIR 1987 SC 1353], and having regard to the grounds
pressed into service for condonation of delay, in my
considered view, constitutes su1icient cause to condone the
delay, hence, the present application deserves to be allowed
and is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HS
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HARSHIT SANCHETI(HCD0070), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/08/2026 17:38:11
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.