SANTOSHKUMAR BHASKAR SWAIversusTILAKRAJ MAHERCHAND
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 53 days is condoned as the applicant has shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 53‑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 or dilatory tactics. The respondents opposed the condonation. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally interpreted. Relying on the principle that there is no presumption of deliberate delay and citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the applicant's reasons bona fide. Consequently, the court condoned the 53‑day delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 53 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/3564/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3564 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/20045/2025
==========================================================
SANTOSHKUMAR BHASKAR SWAI
Versus
TILAKRAJ MAHERCHAND & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 4led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 53 days caused in 4ling 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 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.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/3564/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
[5.0] 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 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.
[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 53 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 16/01/2026 14:33:01
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.