High Court of Gujarat

NISHABEN KAMLESHBHAI PARMARversusJAGMALBHAI MAHADEVBHAI RABARI

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

Holding

The Court held that the 334‑day delay was sufficient cause and therefore condoned the delay.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 334‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. The respondents opposed the application, arguing against condonation. The Court examined the submissions and emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court held that the reasons provided constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, allowing the appeal to proceed, but barred the applicants from claiming interest for the delayed period.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 334 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

Limitation ActSection 5condonation of delayFirst Appealsubstantial justiceinterest

Judgment

     C/CA/4102/2025                         ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4102 of
                               2025
                  In F/FIRST APPEAL/23859/2025
==========================================================
              NISHABEN KAMLESHBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
                               Versus
             JAGMALBHAI MAHADEVBHAI RABARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  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 334 days caused in 7ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] Though served, respondent No.2 has not appear. 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.




                             Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/4102/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




[5.0] Considering                the       submissions               made          by       the       learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants 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 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 334 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.                      However, it is made clear that the
applicants shall not claim interest for the said 334 days if they
succeed in the 7rst appeal.


                                                                       (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 14:28:19




                                                  Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

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

Try "Limitation Act"Sign in to search