MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITEDversusNATVARSINH MATHURBHAI PATEL

     C/CA/5309/2025                           ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5309 of
                                2025
                  In F/FIRST APPEAL/29816/2025
==========================================================
               MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
                                Versus
              NATVARSINH MATHURBHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,5,6
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 12/01/2026
                          ORAL ORDER

      Registry to accept vakalatnama of learend advocate Mr.
Nishit Bhalodi who has instructions to appear for the original
claimants.

[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 47 days caused in filing the First
Appeal.

[2.0] 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 file the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing
the First Appeal.




                              Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/5309/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026




[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.

[5.0] Considering                 the       submissions               made          by       the       learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned sufÏcient 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 ‘sufÏcient 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 bonafide
and genuine. There is no smack of malafide 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 47 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
        Registry to show name of learned advocate Mr. Bhalodi in
First Appeal as advocate appearing for the original claimants.


                                                                        (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 15:12:46




                                                   Page 2 of 2