BHANUPRASAD VASRAMBHAI PARMARversusKISHORSINH SHANKERBHAI PAGI
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 1902‑day delay 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 1902‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. Respondents 1 and 3 were served but did not appear before the Court. The learned advocate for the applicant argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The Court, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice and a liberal approach to "sufficient cause," found the applicant's reasons bona fide and without mala‑fide. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application, while clarifying that the applicant cannot claim interest for the delayed period.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 1902 days in filing the First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5401/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5401 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/28122/2025
==========================================================
BHANUPRASAD VASRAMBHAI PARMAR
Versus
KISHORSINH SHANKERBHAI PAGI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RIYAN M. MANSURI(16448) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
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 1902 days caused in 昀椀ling the
First Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 3 have not appeared.
I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
[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] Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned su昀케cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5401/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026
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.
[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 1902 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
It is clari昀椀ed that the applicant shall not be entitled to claim
interest for the period of delay i.e. 1902 days in the event the
applicant succeeds in the First Appeal.
(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 14:40:37
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.