SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusBHARATBHAI LILADHARBHAI DAVDA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 179 days is condoned as the applicant has shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 179‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondent had been served but did not appear. The court examined whether the delay was justified and whether the applicant showed sufficient cause. Relying on the principle that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the judge found the reasons bona‑fide and not dilatory. Consequently, the court exercised liberal interpretation of ‘sufficient cause’ and granted the condonation, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 179‑day delay in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5361/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5361 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/30971/2025
==========================================================
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
BHARATBHAI LILADHARBHAI DAVDA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 0led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 179 days caused in 0ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, respondent No.2 has not appeared. I have
heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 0le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 0ling
the First Appeal.
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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5361/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
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 bona0de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala0de 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.
In view of the above, the delay of 179 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 23/02/2026 15:11:47
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.