FALGUNIBEN HASMUKHBHAI THAKKARversusMOMBHAI VAJABHAI RATHOD
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 326‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 326‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. The respondents did not appear before the Court. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The Court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that "sufficient cause" must be given a liberal interpretation. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court found the applicants' reasons bona fide. Consequently, the delay was condoned and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 326 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5435/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5435 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/28126/2025
==========================================================
FALGUNIBEN HASMUKHBHAI THAKKAR & ORS.
Versus
MOMBHAI VAJABHAI RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 326 days caused in 7ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have chosen not
to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned advocate
for the applicants.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 7le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 7ling
the First Appeal. It is also submitted that the cross appeal has
also been 7led by the insurance company.
[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned su?cient
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5435/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
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 bona7de and genuine.
There is no smack of mala7de 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.
[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 326 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
(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 16/01/2026 14:29:30
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.