LALITABEN RAMESHBHAI GAMITversusMAHESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI DHOLIYA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 86‑day delay and allowed the application.
Summary
The applicants filed a first appeal 86 days after the prescribed period and applied for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned advocate for the applicants pleaded that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory tactics. The court examined whether the delay could be considered as having sufficient cause and emphasized that limitation provisions should not defeat substantial justice. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court adopted a liberal approach to the interpretation of ‘sufficient cause’. Finding no mala‑fide intent and deeming the reasons bona fide, the court condoned the 86‑day delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the 86‑day delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5647/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5647 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/33891/2025
==========================================================
LALITABEN RAMESHBHAI GAMIT & ANR.
Versus
MAHESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI DHOLIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 86 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective
parties.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 6le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 6ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned su?cient
cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the
Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5647/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026
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
‘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 bona6de and genuine.
There is no smack of mala6de 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 86 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 15:32:35
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.