JAGDISHBHAI DEVABHAI TADVI THROUGH KAPILABEN ALIAS KAPILBEN JAGDISHBHAI TADVIversusSANJAYBHAI RAMANBHAI TADVI
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 171‑day delay is condonable as the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause and no mala fide intent, applying a liberal construction of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
Jagdishbhai Devabhai Tadvi filed a first appeal against Sanjaybhai Ramanbhai Tadvi and another, but the appeal was lodged 171 days after the prescribed period. The applicant sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, asserting sufficient cause and absence of any mala fide intent. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the delay was excessive. The Court examined the purpose of limitation statutes, emphasizing that they should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally interpreted. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the applicant's reasons bona fide and without dilatory motive. Consequently, the Court condoned the 171‑day delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 171 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/3684/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3684 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/13676/2025
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI DEVABHAI TADVI THROUGH KAPILABEN ALIAS
KAPILBEN JAGDISHBHAI TADVI
Versus
SANJAYBHAI RAMANBHAI TADVI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1) This application is led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 171 days caused in ling the First Appeal.
2) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the
applicant could not le First Appeal in timely fashion because of the
reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to
condone the delay caused in ling the First Appeal.
3) Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the applicant has mentioned su$cient cause for
condonation of delay. The primary function of the Court is to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance
substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the
rights of parties. The Court is aware of the fact that denial to
condone the delay would mean to dismiss the First Appeal at
threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/3684/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
applicant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘su$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 bona de and genuine. There is no smack of mala de 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.
4) In view of the above, delay of 171 days as explained in memo of the
application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/02/2026 14:47:44
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.