HEIRS OF DECD. NAGPALSINH VIKRAMSINH PARMARversusDILIPKUMAR KIRTIBHAI MISTRI

     C/CA/3440/2025                                ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3440 of
                            2025

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL/18821/2025

==========================================================
     HEIRS OF DECD. NAGPALSINH VIKRAMSINH PARMAR & ORS.
                             Versus
               DILIPKUMAR KIRTIBHAI MISTRI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 23/02/2026

                              ORAL ORDER

   1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Though served,
      none appears for respondent No.1. Registry to show the name of
      Mr.Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in
      First Appeal.

   2) This application is $led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
      condonation of delay of 153 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



                                 Page 1 of 2
           C/CA/3440/2025                                                     ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




            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’
            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 153 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 23/02/2026 14:45:18




                                                    Page 2 of 2