LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTDversusNILESHKUMAR SARTANBHAI BARIA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 65‑day delay is condonable as sufficient cause exists under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The case involves an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 65‑day delay in filing a first appeal by Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd. The respondents did not appear before the court. The applicant argued that the delay was caused by reasons set out in the application and that there was no malice or dilatory intent. The court examined the principle that limitation provisions are not meant to defeat substantive justice and that “sufficient cause” must be given a liberal construction. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the reasons bona fide. Consequently, the court held that the delay could be condoned. The application was allowed, and the first appeal may proceed.
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/5526/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5526 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/32667/2025
==========================================================
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
NILESHKUMAR SARTANBHAI BARIA & ORS.
==========================================================
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. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 1led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 65 days caused in 1ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, none appeared for respondent Nos.1 to 3. I
have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 1le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 1ling
the First Appeal.
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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5526/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 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 bona1de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala1de 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 14:36:53
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.