PREMSINGH RAMAJI CHAUHAN Vs. BHARATSING DILIPSING CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by Mr. Kartik Barot, learned advocate for Mr. Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate for the applicant that the respondent No.3 being the driver of the truck could not be served though attempt has been made to get him served after procuring his address, still, however, inspite of due diligence, he could not be served. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that since the owner of the jeep and the insurance company as well as the Chief Secretary are on record; the presence of the driver as respondent No.3 would not be necessary, and thus make a prayer to delete the respondent No.3 from the cause title. The record shows that many attempts have been made to serve respondent No.3. As per the judgment and award of the tribunal in MACP No. 926 of 2004, the driver was served but he did not appear. Considering this fact the driver is ordered to be deleted from the cause title as respondent No.3.

(2.) This civil application has been filed praying for condonation of delay of 760 days in filing the captioned First Appeal.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant upon disposal of the claim petition approached his lawyer to file necessary appeal and he was informed to make arrangement for necessary court fees as well as expenses and other fees for filing appeal before the Hon'ble Court. However, he was not having sufficient money to bear the court fees, expenses as well as other fees of the lawyer at the relevant time and he had to make necessary arrangements for the same. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the delay of 760 days has been caused in preferring the captioned appeal.