MIXIKABEN NALINKUMAR PATELversusMANISHBHAI YOGESHBHAI AGRAWAL
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 21‑day delay is condonable as the applicants have shown sufficient cause.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 21‑day delay in filing a cross‑objection to First Appeal No. 2665/2025. The applicants argued that genuine reasons, set out in their memorandum, constituted sufficient cause, while the respondent opposed the condonation. The Court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that there was no evidence of malafide or dilatory intent. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Consequently, the Court held that the delay was condonable, allowed the application, and ordered that the cross‑objections be listed with the first appeal, subject to removal of any office objections.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 21 days in filing a cross‑objection to a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the reasons provided constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation.
- Whether there is any malafide or dilatory intent on the part of the applicants.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5432/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5432 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION/29981/2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL/2665/2025
==========================================================
MIXIKABEN NALINKUMAR PATEL & ORS.
Versus
MANISHBHAI YOGESHBHAI AGRAWAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 21 days caused in filing the Cross
Objection in First Appeal No.2665/2025.
[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not file the Cross Objection in First
Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in
paragraph 4 of the application and therefore, has requested to
condone the delay.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respondent No.3 has vehemently
opposed the present application.
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5432/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026
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 Cross Objections 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 reasons stated in paragraph 4
of the application 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 21 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
Cross Objections to be listed alongwith First Appeal
No.2665/2025 subject to removal of ofÏce objections, if any.
(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 08/01/2026 14:28:39
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.