High Court of Gujarat

BHURABHAI LAXMANBHAI SOLANKIversusMAHAVIR PRASAD MITHULAL TELI

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

Holding

Delay of 48 days in filing the First Appeal is condoned as sufficient cause was shown and no malafide or dilatory tactics were found, applying a liberal approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice.

Summary

This application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 48 days' delay in filing the First Appeal. The applicants are Bhurabhai Laxmanbhai Solanki and another, while the respondents are Mahavir Prasad Mithulal Teli and others. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served but did not appear, and respondent No.3 opposed the application. The applicants explained the reasons for the delay in the application. The Court found that sufficient cause was made out and observed that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. It noted that there was no presumption that the delay was deliberate and no malafide or dilatory tactics on the applicants' part. The Court relied on N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, and held that 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 should receive liberal consideration to advance substantial justice. The delay of 48 days was condoned and the application was allowed. The Registry was directed to show the name of learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta in the First Appeal as advocate for original opponent No.3.

Issues considered

Whether sufficient cause was made out for condonation of 48 days' delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the First Appeal?

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

Condonation of delaySufficient causeLimitation ActSubstantial justiceFirst AppealLiberal construction

Judgment

     C/CA/5306/2025                           ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5306 of
                              2025
                In F/FIRST APPEAL/30164/2025
==========================================================
            BHURABHAI LAXMANBHAI SOLANKI & ANR.
                             Versus
             MAHAVIR PRASAD MITHULAL TELI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 12/01/2026
                          ORAL ORDER


[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 48 days caused in filing the First
Appeal.

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

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

[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.



                              Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/5306/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




[5.0] Considering                  the       submissions               made          by      the       learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
mentioned sufÏcient 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 ‘sufÏcient 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 bonafide
and genuine. There is no smack of malafide 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 48 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.3.


                                                                         (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 15:13:34




                                                    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