OWNER OF GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusBEENABEN AJAYBHAI GOHEL
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The three‑day delay in filing the first appeal is condoned.
Summary
The Owner of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a three‑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 court emphasized that limitation provisions should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally considered. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the judge held that the reasons were bona fide and granted condonation, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether a three‑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/6226/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6226 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/34696/2025
==========================================================
OWNER OF GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
BEENABEN AJAYBHAI GOHEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 4led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 3 days caused in 4ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, resopndents have not appeared before the
Court. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 4le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 4ling
the First Appeal.
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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/6226/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 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 3 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 14:26:22
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.