LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED VAJUBEN CHHANAJI THAKORversusGOBARBHAI JIVABHAI RAWAL
- Disposal
- 33-CA DISPOSED OF
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 168 days in filing the First Appeal is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The legal heirs of the deceased filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 168‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. The respondents either did not appear or were not served. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause should be liberally considered. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the reasons bona fide and ordered the delay condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 168 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5959/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5959 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/35772/2025
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED VAJUBEN CHHANAJI THAKOR & ORS.
Versus
GOBARBHAI JIVABHAI RAWAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,2,3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 168 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondent No.2 has not appeared before
this Court. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicants.
[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/5959/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026
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 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.
[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 168 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 05/02/2026 15:31:55
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.