High Court of Gujarat

THAKOR SAVITABEN CHENJI VAGHANIYA LEGAL HEIRS OF THAKOR CHENJI MANCHAJIversusASHOKBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAUDHARY

Disposal: 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The Court held that the 220‑day delay is condoned as the applicants have shown sufficient cause.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 220‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. They argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The respondents opposed the application, contending that the delay should not be condoned. The Court, emphasizing the need to advance substantial justice and noting the absence of mala‑fide conduct, held that the reasons provided constituted sufficient cause. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court condoned the delay but directed that the claimants could not claim interest on any enhanced compensation awarded in the First Appeal. The application was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 220 days in filing the First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the reasons given constitute sufficient cause for condonation
Whether the respondents are prejudiced by the condonation
Whether interest can be claimed on the enhanced compensation if the First Appeal succeeds

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5First Appealsubstantial justiceinterest on compensationcourt order

Judgment

     C/CA/5422/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5422 of
                              2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/33033/2025
==========================================================
  THAKOR SAVITABEN CHENJI VAGHANIYA LEGAL HEIRS OF THAKOR
                     CHENJI MANCHAJI & ORS.
                              Versus
            ASHOKBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR DIPEN F CHAUDHARI(6740) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                             Date : 13/02/2026
                              ORAL ORDER


      This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 220 days caused in 7ling the First
Appeal.

      I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.

      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 7le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 7ling
the First Appeal.

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


                                  Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/5422/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




         Considering              the        submissions               made          by      the       learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
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
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 applicants 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 bona7de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala7de or dilatory tactics on
the part of the applicants. 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 220 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimants
shall      not        claim        interest           on       the       enhanced              amount            of
compensation if succeed in the First Appeal.


         Registry to show name of Mr. Rituraj Meena in First Appeal
as learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3.


                                                                        (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 13/02/2026 14:34:16




                                                   Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search