KANKUBEN SHAMBHUBHAI KHATARIAversusMANAGERSHRI,MAHESHWARI HANDLING AGENCY PVT. LTD.
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
Delay of 391 days is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as sufficient cause was shown, but the claimants shall not be entitled to claim interest for the delay period if they succeed in the First Appeal.
Summary
This application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 391 days' delay in filing the First Appeal. The applicants stated that they could not file the First Appeal in time for the reasons mentioned in the application. The respondents opposed the application. The Court observed that the primary function of the Court is to adjudicate disputes and advance substantial justice, and that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. It noted that denial of condonation would dismiss the First Appeal at the threshold and that there is no presumption that the delay was deliberate. The reasons stated appeared bona fide and genuine, with no mala fide or dilatory tactics. Reliance was placed on N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123. The delay was condoned and the application allowed, with the clarification that the claimants would not be entitled to claim interest for the delay period if they succeed in the First Appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 391 days in filing the First Appeal deserves to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether sufficient cause was shown by the applicants for condonation of delay?
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/6051/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6051 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/37625/2025
==========================================================
KANKUBEN SHAMBHUBHAI KHATARIA & ORS.
Versus
MANAGERSHRI,MAHESHWARI HANDLING AGENCY PVT. LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 391 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates 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] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/6051/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants 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 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.
[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 391 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. It is made clear that the claimants shall not
be entitled to claim interest for the aforesaid period of delay if
they succeed in the First Appeal.
(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 09/02/2026 15:23:01
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.