JAGDISHBHAI MANILAL THAKORversusSUKHDEV RAMLAL JAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 1,987 days is condoned as sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 1,987‑day delay in filing their first appeal. Respondent No.3 was served but did not appear; the other respondents were not served. The applicants’ counsel argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any mala‑fide intent. The court, emphasizing the liberal approach to "sufficient cause" and citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, found the reasons bona fide and granted condonation. Consequently, the application was allowed, but the court barred the applicants from claiming interest for the period of delay.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 1,987 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for the delay
- Whether interest can be claimed for the period of delay after condonation
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/2524/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2524 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/6028/2025
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI MANILAL THAKOR & ORS.
Versus
SUKHDEV RAMLAL JAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JATIN S SHERAWAT(9173) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 1987 days caused in 5ling the
First Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, none appeared for respondent No.3. I have
heard the learned advocate for the applicants.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 5le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 5ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned su?cient
cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the
Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/2524/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
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 applicants is deliberate. In view thereof, the words
‘su?cient 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 applicants. 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.
[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 1987 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. It is clari5ed that the applicants shall not
claim interest for the aforesaid period of delay if they succeed in
the First Appeal.
(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 09/02/2026 15:12:56
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.