High Court of Gujarat

DESAI (RABARI) BABUBEN WD/O SAGARBHAI JORABHAIversusRAJPUT RAJENDRASINH SURYANATHSHRI

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

Holding

The Court condoned the 936‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation.

Summary

The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 936‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. They claimed sufficient cause for the delay, while the respondents opposed the condonation. The Court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and found no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Consequently, the delay was condoned and the application was allowed, with the condition that the petitioners could not claim interest on any enhanced compensation awarded in the First Appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 936 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5first appealsubstantial justiceinterest denial

Judgment

      C/CA/5375/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5375 of
                               2025
                  In F/FIRST APPEAL/31657/2025
==========================================================
    DESAI (RABARI) BABUBEN WD/O SAGARBHAI JORABHAI & ORS.
                              Versus
           RAJPUT RAJENDRASINH SURYANATHSHRI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                Date : 23/02/2026
                                 ORAL ORDER


       This application is 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 936 days caused in 5ling the First
Appeal.

       I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.

       It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 5le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 5ling
the First Appeal.

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

       Considering        the     submissions       made        by   the    learned


                                      Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/5375/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
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 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 bona5de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala5de 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.

         In view of the above, the delay of 936 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimants
shall      not        claim        interest           on       the       enhanced              amount            of
compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the claimants
succeed in the First Appeal.

         Registry to show name of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati as learned
advocate appearing for respondent No.3 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 15:16:02




                                                   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