High Court of Gujarat

JITENDRA HASMUKHRAI JANIversusLHS AND LRS OF THE DECEASED ALPESH BABUBHAI

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

Holding

The court condoned the 770‑day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 770‑day delay in filing a first appeal. Respondents No.1 and No.3 did not appear, while counsel for the other respondents were present. The court examined the applicant’s explanation, finding it bona fide and not a product of dilatory tactics, and emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause" and therefore condoned the delay. The application was allowed, but the applicant was ordered to pay exemplary costs of Rs.5,000 to the respondents.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 770 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the applicant’s explanation constitutes "sufficient cause" for condonation.
Whether exemplary costs may be imposed on the applicant for a negligent approach.

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation Actfirst appealexemplary costssubstantial justice

Judgment

     C/CA/2819/2025                               ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2819 of
                            2025

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL/9157/2025
==========================================================
                  JITENDRA HASMUKHRAI JANI
                            Versus
     LHS AND LRS OF THE DECEASED ALPESH BABUBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HARSHIT M KARATHIA(7916) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR K B VIRVADIYA(11272) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.3
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 17/02/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


  1) Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3.


  2) This application is   led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
      condonation of delay of 770 days caused in ling the First Appeal.

  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



                                 Page 1 of 2
         C/CA/2819/2025                                                     ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026




          applicant 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 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, more particularly the reasons mentioned in
          paragraph 2 and 3 thereof, delay of 770 days as explained in memo of
          the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
          However, considering the negligent approach on the part of the
          applicant, the applicant shall pay exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- to
          respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.3.




                                                                        (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 17/02/2026 16:50:21




                                                  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