High Court of Gujarat

BHARATBHAI RUMALBHAI SODHAversusPRASHANTKUMAR DILIPBHAI PATEL

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

Holding

The 66‑day delay in filing the First Appeal is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 66‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. Respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 did not appear, while respondents 3 and 6 were represented. The court examined the reasons given for the delay and emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive 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 adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Consequently, the court held that the delay was bona‑fide and condoned it, allowing the application.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 66 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for the delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5First Appealsubstantial justiceGujarat High Court

Judgment

     C/CA/4106/2025                         ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4106 of
                               2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/23865/2025
==========================================================
              BHARATBHAI RUMALBHAI SODHA & ANR.
                               Versus
             PRASHANTKUMAR DILIPBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4,5
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                        Date : 16/01/2026
                         ORAL ORDER


[1.0] This application is 8led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 66 days caused in 8ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 have chosen
not to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned
advocates appearing for the applicants, respondent No.3 and
respondent No.6.

[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 8le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 8ling
the First Appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have


                             Page 1 of 2
         C/CA/4106/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




vehemently opposed the present application.

[5.0] 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 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 bona8de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala8de 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.

[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 66 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 14:30:00




                                                     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