THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusPRAVINBHAI KUMANBHAI RAVAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 18‑day delay is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an 18‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant’s counsel, Ms. Dimple A. Thaker, argued that the delay was due to sufficient cause and not deliberate. Respondent No.2, represented by Mr. Shivraj H. Shah, opposed the condonation. The Court examined the principle that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and noted the absence of any mala‑fide intent, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy. Finding the reasons bona fide, the Court exercised a liberal approach and allowed the application, condoning the delay.
Issues considered
- Whether an 18‑day delay in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5765/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5765 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/24949/2025
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
PRAVINBHAI KUMANBHAI RAVAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHIVRAJ H SHAH(18851) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 3led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 18 days caused in 3ling the First
Appeal.
I have heard the learned advocates for the applicant and
respondent No.2.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 3le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 3ling
the First Appeal.
Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has vehemently
opposed the present application.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5765/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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
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 bona3de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala3de 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 18 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 14:28:41
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.