High Court of Gujarat

KEYURBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATELversusRAMILABEN BHUPATBHAI SOLANKI (DELETED)

Disposal: 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The Court held that the 211‑day delay 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 211‑day delay in filing a first appeal. Respondent No.4 did not appear before the court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not deliberate, while the respondents opposed the condonation. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that the applicant showed sufficient cause without any mala‑fide intent. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the court adopted a liberal approach to the ‘sufficient cause’ requirement. Consequently, the court condoned the 211‑day delay and allowed the application.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 211 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Whether there is any mala‑fide or dilatory intent on the part of the applicant

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5first appealsubstantial justiceliberal interpretation

Judgment

     C/CA/4101/2025                          ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4101 of
                               2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/19805/2025
==========================================================
                 KEYURBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL
                               Versus
        RAMILABEN BHUPATBHAI SOLANKI (DELETED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV U RAVAL(9475) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
  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 211 days caused in 5ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] Though served, respondent No.4 has 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
vehemently opposed the present application.



                             Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/4101/2025                                                         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 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 211 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 14:31:27




                                                   Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search