PRATHAMKUMAR HIRENKUMAR PATELversusSALIMKHAN USMANKHAN PATHAN
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 58‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 58‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. Although respondents No.3, 4 and 5 were served, they did not appear before the Court. The applicant argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay, while the respondents opposed the condonation. The Court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court held that the reason given was bona‑fide and granted the condonation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 58 days in filing the First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/4067/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4067 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/14170/2025
==========================================================
PRATHAMKUMAR HIRENKUMAR PATEL
Versus
SALIMKHAN USMANKHAN PATHAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 58 days caused in 5ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 have not
appeared before the Court. 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 5le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 5ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/4067/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
vehemently opposed the present application.
[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 bona5de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala5de 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 58 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 14:32:24
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.