LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusBHARATBHAI MANJIBHAI JAMBUKIYA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The 17‑day delay is condoned, and the application for condonation is allowed.
Summary
The plaintiff, Liberty General Insurance Company Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 17‑day delay in filing its first appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear, while Respondent 3‑6 were represented. The court examined the reasons for delay, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the judge held that sufficient cause existed and applied a liberal approach. Consequently, the court condoned the delay, allowed the application, and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 17 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/110/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 110 of
2026
In F/FIRST APPEAL/39786/2025
==========================================================
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
BHARATBHAI MANJIBHAI JAMBUKIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 17 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared.
I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
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 respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/110/2026 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
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 17 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 23/02/2026 15:14:11
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.