TARUNKUMAR PRADIPBHAI VASAVAversusPRADIPBHAI VITTHALBHAI VASAVA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court condoned the delay and allowed the application for condonation of delay.
Summary
The petitioners sought condonation of an 824‑day delay in filing a first appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They argued that the delay was not deliberate and cited sufficient cause, while the respondents opposed the application. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that there was no mala‑fide intent. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Consequently, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application, but clarified that no interest could be claimed for the delayed period.
Issues considered
- Whether an 824‑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/2925/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2925 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/13395/2025
==========================================================
TARUNKUMAR PRADIPBHAI VASAVA & ANR.
Versus
PRADIPBHAI VITTHALBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR RAJU N DESAI(7029) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 824 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants 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.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/2925/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
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 applicants 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 applicants. 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.
[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 824 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. It is made clear that the claimants shall not
be entitled to claim interest for the aforesaid period of delay.
(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 15:15:00
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.