High Court of Gujarat

LHRS OF DECD. SIDDHARTH KIRANBHAI SANGHRAJKAversusHARSHADBHAI DINESHBHAI AANJANKA

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

Holding

The delay of 96 days is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The petitioners sought condonation of a 96‑day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that sufficient cause should be liberally interpreted. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the reasons bona fide. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 96 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation Actfirst appealsubstantial justiceSection 5civil procedure

Judgment

     C/CA/3950/2025                               ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3950 of
                            2025

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL/13681/2025

==========================================================
    LHRS OF DECD. SIDDHARTH KIRANBHAI SANGHRAJKA & ORS.
                           Versus
          HARSHADBHAI DINESHBHAI AANJANKA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE UNSERVED 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 Nos.1 and 4.

   2) This application is   led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
      condonation of delay of 96 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


                                 Page 1 of 2
         C/CA/3950/2025                                                    ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




          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 96 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 14:46:59




                                                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