VANRAJ HAMIRBHAI CHAVADIYAversusAJAYBHAI UDAYBHAI VAGHELA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court held that the 98‑day delay is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 98‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. The respondent No.2 did not appear, and the applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons without any mala fides. The court examined the principle that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally considered. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the applicant’s explanation bona fide. Consequently, the court condoned the 98‑day delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 98 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
- Whether there is any mala fides or dilatory intent on the part of the applicant
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/223/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 223 of
2026
In F/FIRST APPEAL/39490/2025
==========================================================
VANRAJ HAMIRBHAI CHAVADIYA
Versus
AJAYBHAI UDAYBHAI VAGHELA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1) This application is led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 98 days caused in ling the First Appeal.
2) Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.
3) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the
applicant could not le First Appeal in timely fashion because of the
reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to
condone the delay caused in ling the First Appeal.
4) Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the applicant has mentioned su&cient 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, the words ‘su&cient cause’
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/223/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2026
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
consideration so as to advance substantial justice. Even reason stated
appears to be bona de and genuine. There is no smack of mala de 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.
5) In view of the above, delay of 98 days as explained in memo of the
application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/03/2026 14:33:12
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.