##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/75/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026

0.8426065211281385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 75 of 2025

In F/FIRST APPEAL/36173/2024 ==========================================================

RAMESHBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI PATEL Versus M/S.ALLEIMA INDIA PVT.LTD & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR UTSAV SHETH ADVOCATE for MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NISARG DESAI ADVOCATE with

MS PRAVALIKHA BATTHINI, ADVOCATE for GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 02/04/2026

ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the Act’, for short), the applicant has

prayed for following reliefs:

The applicant therefore, humbly prays that pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid Appeal,

this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

“A. Allow this application:

B. To condone the delay of 1850 days in preferring the above referred First Appeal:

C. Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may deem fit

Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 15:20:31 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/75/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026

0.8426065211281385

proper, in the interest of justice.”

3. It is an application for condonation of colossal and huge delay of 1850 days in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and order passed Workman Compensation Commissioner, Kalol in Workman Non-Fatal Case No.25 of 2008 whereby the application was dismissed for non- prosecution on 27.09.2019. The applicant intent to challenge

the said order and therefore this petition.

4.1 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was suffering from vertigo and, therefore, he could not even stand and he was not informed even by his advocate to produce the evidence. All these circumstances have lead to dismissal of the claim petition. He would further submit that since the petitioner was prevented, for sufficient reason, for not producing the evidence as well as for filing the petition within stipulated time Court should take liberal and

justice oriented approach to condone the delay.

5. Learned advocate Ms.Pravalikha Batthini as well as learned advocate Ms.Kirti Pathak appearing for respondents respectively would submit that there is no reason worth the name has been stated in the application for condonation of huge and colossal delay of 1850 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner without producing the evidence tried to shifting the burden on learned advocate for condonation of delay without explaining delay with sufficient cause and,

therefore, this petition may be dismissed.

Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Apr 09 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 10 15:20:31 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/75/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2026

0.8426065211281385

6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at the outset, let me refer paras:2 to 6 of the application, which are grounds whereby the petitioner claims that he has explained

delay, which read as under:

“2. It is submitted that there is no fault of the applicant and he was never called by his representative to give oral evidence in the matter and just because of that, the entire matter has not been considered by the Court

below.

3. It is submitted that the aforesaid award was not communicated by the representative of the applicant before the Court below and the applicant was not aware about the outcome of his case, as soon within short span Covid 19 pandemic was spreaded and after Covid- 19 pandemic is over, the applicant was in the need of money and therefore, he approached his representative to inquire about his case and at that