ZINUBEN BHAGGDABHAI VASAVAversusARPITBHAI RAJENDRABHAI RAJPURA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 126‑day delay is condoned as the petitioners have shown sufficient cause.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 126‑day delay in filing their first appeal. They contended that the delay was caused by reasons set out in the application and was not deliberate. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that no sufficient cause existed. The Court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that “sufficient cause” must be given a liberal construction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the petitioners’ explanation bona‑fide and without mala‑fide intent. Accordingly, the delay was condoned and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 126‑day delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause and absence of mala‑fide intent
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/3484/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3484 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/8115/2025
==========================================================
ZINUBEN BHAGGDABHAI VASAVA & ANR.
Versus
ARPITBHAI RAJENDRABHAI RAJPURA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 126 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/3484/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants has
mentioned suAcient 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 ‘suAcient 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 126 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
(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 16/01/2026 14:33:37
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.