JAYESHBHAI HARENDRABHAI PANDYAversusEDWARD RODRIGUES LIONEL
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the delay of 105 days is condoned as sufficient cause is shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The petitioners sought condonation of a 105‑day delay in filing a First Appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. They submitted a sick note and explained that the delay was not deliberate but due to genuine reasons. The respondents opposed the condonation. The Court examined the principle that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally interpreted. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the petitioners' explanation bona fide and without mala‑fide intent. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the 105‑day delay in filing the First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/3568/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3568 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/19323/2025
==========================================================
JAYESHBHAI HARENDRABHAI PANDYA & ANR.
Versus
EDWARD RODRIGUES LIONEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 3led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 105 days caused in 3ling the First
Appeal.
Though learned advocate for the applicants has 3led sick
note today however, considering the averments made in the
application, it appears that the applicants could not 3le the First
Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the
application.
Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/3568/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 bona3de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala3de 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.
In view of the above, the delay of 105 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 13/02/2026 14:36:11
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.