SHAILENDRA @ SALENDRA RAMPRAVESH YADAVversusTATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 223‑day delay is condoned as the petitioners have demonstrated sufficient cause without any mala‑fide intent.
Summary
The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 223‑day delay in filing a cross‑objection in First Appeal No. 249/2025. The Court examined the submissions and found that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay, with no indication of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Emphasising that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice, the Court adopted a liberal approach to the "sufficient cause" requirement. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 for guidance. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, allowed the application, and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 223 days in filing a cross‑objection can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for the delay
- Whether there is any mala‑fide or dilatory intent on the part of the petitioners
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/6221/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6221 of
2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION/34647/2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL/249/2025
==========================================================
SHAILENDRA @ SALENDRA RAMPRAVESH YADAV & ORS.
Versus
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAINAM M SHAH(17596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 4led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 223 days caused in 4ling the
Cross Objection in First Appeal No.249/2025.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the submissions made by the learned
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 Cross Objection 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/6221/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/02/2026
advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be
bona4de and genuine. There is no smack of mala4de 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 223 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(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 27/02/2026 15:31:57
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.