LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITEDversusNILESHKUMAR SARTANBHAI BARIA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 65‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation.
Summary
The applicant, Liberty General Insurance Ltd, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 65‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the Court. The applicant’s counsel submitted that the delay was due to genuine reasons and was not deliberate. The Court emphasized that limitation statutes are not meant to defeat substantive justice and that “sufficient cause” under Section 5 must be given liberal consideration. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the reasons bona‑fide and without mala‑fide intent. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 65 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/5523/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5523 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/32661/2025
==========================================================
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
Versus
NILESHKUMAR SARTANBHAI BARIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 0led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 65 days caused in 0ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 0le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 0ling
the First Appeal.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned su9cient 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5523/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 applicant is deliberate. In view thereof,
the words ‘su9cient 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 bona0de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala0de 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.
In view of the above, the delay of 65 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 13/02/2026 14:35:13
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.