RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusMANJULABEN RAMESHBHAI TALPADA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court held that the 30‑day delay was sufficient cause and therefore condoned the delay, allowing the first appeal.
Summary
The insurer Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 30‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The judge emphasized that limitation provisions should not defeat substantial justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally interpreted. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the applicant’s reasons bona fide and granted the condonation, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 30 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5782/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5782 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/32021/2025
==========================================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
MANJULABEN RAMESHBHAI TALPADA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 2led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 30 days caused in 2ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, none of the respondents have appeared. I
have heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 2le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 2ling
the First Appeal.
Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicant, 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5782/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 bona2de and genuine. There is no
smack of mala2de 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 30 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 14:25:47
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.