High Court of Gujarat

VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA CHOKSHIversusRAJENDRA @ RAJUBHAI RESHMABHAI VASAVA

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

Holding

The Court condoned the 333‑day delay and allowed the First Appeal.

Summary

The petitioners sought condonation of a 333‑day delay in filing a First Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the delay was unjustified. The Court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that the petitioners presented a bona‑fide reason without any mala‑fide 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 condoned the delay, allowing the First Appeal to proceed, but barred the petitioners from claiming interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 333 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 justicecivil procedure

Judgment

     C/CA/5467/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5467 of
                               2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/32466/2025
==========================================================
          VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA CHOKSHI & ANR.
                               Versus
        RAJENDRA @ RAJUBHAI RESHMABHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 10
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,7,8
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,9
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 13/02/2026
                                ORAL ORDER


      This application is :led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 333 days caused in :ling 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 :le the 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.
      Learned         advocate     for   respective      respondents            have
vehemently opposed the present application.
      Considering        the     submissions      made    by     the     learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants has
mentioned suAcient cause for condonation of delay. The primary

                                    Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/5467/2025                                                        ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




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 ‘suAcient 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 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 333 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the applicants
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. Tanmay Karia in First Appeal
as learned advocate appearing for respondent No.10.


                                                                       (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 13/02/2026 14:34:57




                                                  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