AMRUTSINH MADHAJI CHAUHANversusJOSHI MAULIK MUKESHKUMAR

        C/CA/4312/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4312 of
                                2025

                            In F/FIRST APPEAL/25299/2025

==========================================================
                         AMRUTSINH MADHAJI CHAUHAN & ANR.
                                        Versus
                          JOSHI MAULIK MUKESHKUMAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
FRESH NOTICE SERVED(4512) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                  Date : 20/01/2026

                                   ORAL ORDER


1.       Though served, none appears for the respondents.

2.       This application is     led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 195 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 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


                                      Page 1 of 2
          C/CA/4312/2025                                                     ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




 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, the delay of 195 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 20/01/2026 14:48:23




                                                   Page 2 of 2