High Court of Gujarat

VAISHALIBEN RAJENDRABHAI BARCHHAVversusRAGHAVKUMAR ASHOKKUMAR HALANI

Disposal: 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The Court condoned the 227‑day delay in filing the First Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 227‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. They argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any mala fide intent. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the delay should not be condoned. The Court, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice and noting that limitation rules are not meant to destroy rights, found the applicants' explanation bona fide and without any dilatory motive. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court exercised liberal discretion and condoned the delay, allowing the application but prohibiting any claim for interest on the delayed period.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 227 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 the applicants are entitled to claim interest for the period of delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delaylimitationSection 5first appealsubstantial justice

Judgment

     C/CA/2711/2025                              ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2711 of
                                2025
                  In F/FIRST APPEAL/7737/2025
==========================================================
           VAISHALIBEN RAJENDRABHAI BARCHHAV & ORS.
                                Versus
            RAGHAVKUMAR ASHOKKUMAR HALANI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 09/02/2026
                             ORAL ORDER


[1.0] This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 227 days caused in 7ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.

[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 7le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 7ling
the First Appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.

[5.0] Considering     the    submissions      made   by     the     learned


                                Page 1 of 2
           C/CA/2711/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




  advocates for the respective parties, 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 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 bona7de
  and genuine. There is no smack of mala7de 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.

  [6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 227 days as explained in
  memo of the application is condoned. The application is
  accordingly allowed. It is clari7ed that the applicants herein shall
  not claim interest on the aforesaid period of delay if they
  succeed in the First Appeal.
            Registry to show name of Ms. Kirti Pathak in First Appeal as
  learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2.



                                                                            (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 15:16:20




                                                       Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search