High Court of Gujarat

JAYDEVGIRI VIRGIRI GAUSWAMIversusGHANSHYAMBHAI C. SAVALIYA

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

Holding

The delay of 168 days is condoned as the applicant has shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 168‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. Respondents No.1 and No.2 did not appear, while respondents No.3 and No.4 were represented. The court examined the applicant’s claim of sufficient cause and emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice. It noted the absence of any mala‑fide or dilatory intent and referred to the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123. Finding the reasons bona fide, the court exercised its discretion to condone the delay, allowed the application, and ordered its disposal.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 168 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Whether there is any mala‑fide or dilatory intent on the part of the applicant

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5First Appealsubstantial justiceliberal interpretation

Judgment

     C/CA/5368/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5368 of
                             2025
                In F/FIRST APPEAL/30306/2025
==========================================================
                 JAYDEVGIRI VIRGIRI GAUSWAMI
                            Versus
              GHANSHYAMBHAI C. SAVALIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KULDIP K ACHARYA(10616) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR KETAN V PARMAR(19013) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR NIRAJ H GUPTA(7396) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 23/02/2026
                              ORAL ORDER


      This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 168 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.

      Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared.
I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 6le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 6ling
the First Appeal.

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




                                   Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/5368/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




        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 bona6de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala6de 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.

        In view of the above, the delay of 168 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.

        Registry to show names of Mr. Ketan Parmar as learned
advocate appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. R.M. Meena as
learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4 in the First
Appeal.


                                                                       (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 23/02/2026 15:09:58




                                                  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