High Court of Gujarat

PRAGNESHBHAI GIRISHBHAI BRAHMBHATTversusLAXMAN BHAGUJI MAHETRE

Disposal: 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The court condoned the 359‑day delay and allowed the application.

Summary

The applicant, Pragneshbhai Girishbhai Brahmbhatt, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 359‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a result of mala fide intent. The respondent (No.3) opposed the condonation. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause should be liberally considered. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the applicant's reasons bona fide and without dilatory motive. Consequently, the court condoned the delay but barred the applicant from claiming interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 359 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation Actfirst appealsubstantial justiceinterest restriction

Judgment

     C/CA/6231/2025                          ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6231 of
                               2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/22942/2025
==========================================================
            PRAGNESHBHAI GIRISHBHAI BRAHMBHATT
                               Versus
                LAXMAN BHAGUJI MAHETRE & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 13/02/2026
                          ORAL ORDER

      This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 359 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.

      I have heard the learned advocates for the applicant and
respondent No.3.

      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant 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.

      Learned advocate for respondent No.3 has vehemently
opposed the present application.




                             Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/6231/2025                                                       ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




         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 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 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.

         In view of the above, the delay of 359 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimant
shall      not      claim         interest          on       the       enhanced              amount             of
compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the claimant
succeeds 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 13/02/2026 14:26:06




                                                  Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search