CHIRAG DAMJIBHAI SAVALIYAversusDHANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI KHANT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 80 days in filing the first appeal is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 1987 days in filing a first appeal. The applicant argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay, and the court examined whether the delay was bona fide and not a result of mala‑fide or dilatory tactics. The court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that "sufficient cause" must be given liberal consideration. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the court found the applicant’s reasons genuine. Consequently, the court condoned the delay of 80 days and ordered the registry to record the respondent’s counsel’s name.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant’s explanation constitutes sufficient cause for condonation
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/2175/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2175 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/10896/2025
==========================================================
CHIRAG DAMJIBHAI SAVALIYA
Versus
DHANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI KHANT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicant (s) No. 1
MR MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 8led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 1987 days caused in 8ling the
First Appeal.
[2.0] I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 8le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 8ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicant, the applicant has mentioned suAcient cause
for condonation of delay. The primary function of the Court is to
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/2175/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
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 s is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘suAcient
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 bona8de and genuine. There is no
smack of mala8de 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.
[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 80 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned.
Registry to show name of Mr. Mandeep Singh Saluja in First
Appeal as learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3.
(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 15:12:20
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.