UNITED INDIA INS. COM. LTD.versusLATIFA RIJWAN SUNSRA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The 45‑day delay is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant, United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 45‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The delay was attributed to reasons detailed in the application, and the court noted that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear. The court examined whether the delay was bona fide and found no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court emphasized a liberal approach to "sufficient cause" to further substantial justice. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 45 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5371/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5371 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/29249/2025
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INS. COM. LTD.
Versus
LATIFA RIJWAN SUNSRA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 12/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 昀椀led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 45 days caused in 昀椀ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, driver and owner of o昀昀ending vehicle have
chosen not to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned
advocate for the original claimant.
[3.0] Perusing the application, more particularly para 2 of the
applicatino, it appears that the applicant could not 昀椀le the First
Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in
para 3 of the application as the applicant has made out su昀케cient
cause for condonation of delay. Further, 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5371/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
Appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay
caused by the applicant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words
‘su昀케cient 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 bona昀椀de and genuine.
There is no smack of mala昀椀de 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.
[4.0] In view of the above, the delay of 45 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 12/01/2026 14:45:24
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.