High Court of Gujarat

GULSHAN AKBARALI KHOJAversusSANJAYKUMAR RAMDEV OZA

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

Holding

The Court condoned the 769‑day delay in filing the first appeal.

Summary

The petitioners sought condonation of a 769‑day delay in filing a first appeal, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Respondents No. 1 and 4 did not appear, while counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by mala‑fide intent. The Court examined the principle that limitation provisions should not defeat substantial justice and that ‘sufficient cause’ must be liberally interpreted. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the petitioners’ explanation bona‑fide. Consequently, the delay was condoned and the application was allowed, with the stipulation that the petitioners may not claim interest for the condoned period if the appeal succeeds.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 769 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for the delay
Whether interest can be claimed for the period of condoned delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5first appealsubstantial justiceinterestcivil procedure

Judgment

      C/CA/4134/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4134 of
                              2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/23567/2025
==========================================================
                GULSHAN AKBARALI KHOJA & ORS.
                             Versus
               SANJAYKUMAR RAMDEV OZA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KRUNAL R SAKSENA(5915) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,4
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 16/01/2026
                              ORAL ORDER


[1.0] This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 769 days caused in 7ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 4 have chosen not to
appear before this Court. I have heard the learned advocate for
the applicants.

[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 7le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 7ling
the First Appeal.

[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate



                                   Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/4134/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026




for the applicants, the applicants have 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 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 bona7de and genuine.
There is no smack of mala7de 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.

[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 769 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. In view of statement made in para 10 of the
application, applicants shall not claim interest for the aforesaid
769 days if the applicants succeed in the 7rst appeal.
        Registry to show name of learned advocates Mr. Vibhuti
Nanavaty with Ms Masumi Nanavaty as advocates appearing for
the respondent No.3.


                                                                        (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 14:30:39




                                                   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