ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusLAHNUBHAI BUDHIYABHAI GAVIT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court condoned the 131‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation of delay.
Summary
The applicant, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 131‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the court. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a result of mala fide intent. The court emphasized that limitation provisions should not defeat substantial justice and that sufficient cause should be liberally considered, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy. Finding the reasons bona fide and no evidence of dilatory tactics, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 131 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/4135/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4135 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/11068/2025
==========================================================
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
LAHNUBHAI BUDHIYABHAI GAVIT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 3led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 131 days caused in 3ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 have chosen
not to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned
advocate for the applicants.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 3le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 3ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned su;cient
cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/4135/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
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 bona3de and genuine.
There is no smack of mala3de 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.
[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 131 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 14:28:58
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.