PREMKUMAR SHIVABHAI PARMARversusMAHAVIR PRASAD MITHULAL TELI
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court condoned the 48‑day delay, finding sufficient cause, and allowed the application for condonation of delay.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 48‑day delay in filing a first appeal. Although the respondents were served, they did not appear, and the applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons. The respondents opposed the application, alleging no sufficient cause. The court, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice and noting the absence of any mala‑fide intent, held that the reasons provided constituted sufficient cause and that the limitation provisions should be liberally interpreted. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 48 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
Judgment
C/CA/5281/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5281 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/30183/2025
==========================================================
PREMKUMAR SHIVABHAI PARMAR
Versus
MAHAVIR PRASAD MITHULAL TELI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 12/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 9led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 48 days caused in 9ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though a>ected parties are duly served, they have not
appeared. I have heard the learned advocates for the applicant
and learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 5.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 9le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 9ling
the First Appeal.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5281/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned suBcient 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 ‘suBcient 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 bona9de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala9de 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 48 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
Registry to show name of learned advocate Mr. Chirayu
Mehta in First Appeal as advocate appearing for the original
opponent 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 12/01/2026 15:14:50
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.