High Court of Gujarat

RAVAL RAMILABEN WD/O HASMUKHBHAI ISHWARBHAI (LHS OF DECD.RAVAL HASMUKHBHAI ISHWARBHAI)versusRAJPUT RANCHHODBHAI RUDABHAI

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

Holding

The Court condoned the 36‑day delay and allowed the petitioner's application for condonation.

Summary

The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 36‑day delay in filing their first appeal. The respondents did not appear, except for Respondent No.3 who was represented. The petitioners argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a result of mala‑fide or dilatory tactics. The Court emphasized that limitation provisions should be liberally interpreted to achieve substantial justice and noted the absence of any presumption of deliberate delay. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the cause for delay sufficient and granted the condonation, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 36 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause and absence of mala‑fide for the delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5first appealsubstantial justicecivil procedure

Judgment

      C/CA/5642/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5642 of
                             2025
                In F/FIRST APPEAL/29974/2025
==========================================================
   RAVAL RAMILABEN WD/O HASMUKHBHAI ISHWARBHAI (LHS OF
         DECD.RAVAL HASMUKHBHAI ISHWARBHAI) & ORS.
                            Versus
            RAJPUT RANCHHODBHAI RUDABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4,5,6
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                               Date : 09/01/2026
                                ORAL ORDER

[1.0] This application is :led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 36 days caused in :ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] Though served, none appear for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and
6. Heard learned advocate for the applicantss and learned
advocate for respondent No.3.

[3.0] 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.

[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned suAcient


                                     Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/5642/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026




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
‘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.

[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 36 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 09/01/2026 15:32:55




                                                    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