THAKOR GOPALBHAI DALPATBHAIversusRAJGOR TEJABHAI RASENGABHAI
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 57‑day delay is condoned as sufficient cause exists under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 57‑day delay in filing the First Appeal. The applicant argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay, while the respondents opposed the condonation. The Court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that a liberal approach is warranted when genuine cause is shown. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court found no mala‑fide intent and deemed the reasons bona fide. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 57 days in filing the First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to justify the delay
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5286/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5286 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/31460/2025
==========================================================
THAKOR GOPALBHAI DALPATBHAI
Versus
RAJGOR TEJABHAI RASENGABHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL K VASHI(8220) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 12/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 昀椀led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 57 days caused in 昀椀ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 昀椀le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 昀椀ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5286/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned su昀케cient 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昀케cient 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昀椀de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala昀椀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.
[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 57 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
Registry to show name of learned advocate Mr. Chirayu
Mehta in First Appeal as advocate appearing for the original
opponent No.2.
(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 12/01/2026 14:46:01
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.