High Court of Gujarat

DEVIBEN VASANBHAI SONARAversusMAHDEVA HIRABHAI SONARA

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

Holding

Delay of 298 days in filing the First Appeal is condoned as sufficient cause was shown, since limitation rules should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice and there was no mala fide or dilatory tactic.

Summary

This is a civil application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 298 days' delay in filing the accompanying First Appeal. The applicants are Deviben Vasanbhai Sonara & Ors., and the respondents are Mahdeva Hirabhai Sonara & Ors. Though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were served, none appeared for them, while respondent No. 3 was represented. The applicants submitted that the delay occurred for the reasons stated in the application. The Court found that sufficient cause was made out and observed that limitation rules are not meant to destroy rights but to advance substantial justice. It noted no mala fide or dilatory tactics and relied on N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy. The delay was condoned and the application allowed, with a condition that if the appellants succeed in the First Appeal, they shall not claim interest on any enhanced amount for the delayed period.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of 298 days in filing the First Appeal deserves condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Whether sufficient cause has been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay?

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation Actsufficient causeFirst Appealsubstantial justicemala fidedilatory tactics

Judgment

        C/CA/5464/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5464 of
                                2025
                            In F/FIRST APPEAL/27984/2025

==========================================================
                         DEVIBEN VASANBHAI SONARA & ORS.
                                      Versus
                         MAHDEVA HIRABHAI SONARA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                  Date : 20/01/2026

                                   ORAL ORDER


1.       Though served, none appears for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.


2.       This application is     led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 298 days caused in ling the First Appeal.


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


4.       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


                                      Page 1 of 2
         C/CA/5464/2025                                                    ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026




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
bona de and genuine. There is no smack of mala de 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.


5.        In view of the above, the delay of 298 days as explained in memo of
the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. It is
made clear that if the appellant succeeds in First Appeal, they shall not claim
interest on the enhanced amount, if any, for the aforesaid delayed period.




                                                                       (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT



 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 14:49:07




                                                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