GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusSABIHA JAVID BHATTI
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 11‑day delay is condoned as there is sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of an 11‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The respondents did not appear before the Court. The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not deliberate. The Court, emphasizing the need to advance substantial justice and interpreting ‘sufficient cause’ liberally, found the reasons bona fide and without mala‑fide intent. 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 an 11‑day delay in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5400/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5400 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/29354/2025
==========================================================
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
Versus
SABIHA JAVID BHATTI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
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 11 days caused in 昀椀ling the First
Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondents have chosen not to appear
before this Court.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 昀椀le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 昀椀ling
the First Appeal.
[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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5400/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
mentioned su昀케cient 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 ‘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.
[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 11 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 14:40:04
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.