THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusAARTI VIDITBHAI SHARMA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 12‑day delay is condoned as sufficient cause was shown.
Summary
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 12‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The Court heard counsel for both the applicant and the respondents. It observed that limitation rules are not meant to defeat substantive justice and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent on the part of the applicant. Relying on the principle that ‘sufficient cause’ must be given a liberal construction and on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the applicant’s explanation bona‑fide. Accordingly, the 12‑day delay was condoned and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 12‑day delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/1110/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1110 of
2026
In F/FIRST APPEAL/6226/2026
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
AARTI VIDITBHAI SHARMA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
Registry to accept vakalatnama of learned advocate Mr.
Harsh R. Joshi, who has instructions to appear for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
This application is 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 12 days caused in 5ling the First
Appeal.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned su9cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary
function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are
not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of
the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss
the First Appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that
the delay caused by the applicant is deliberate. In view thereof,
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/1110/2026 ORDER DATED: 03/03/2026
the words ‘su9cient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal consideration so as to advance
substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bona5de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala5de or dilatory tactics on
the part of the applicant. Further, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.
Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123.
In view of the above, the delay of 12 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/03/2026 15:13:08
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.