High Court of Gujarat

TAKOR SONALBEN BHIKHAJI VAGHANIYAversusASHOKBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAUDHARY

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

Holding

The delay of 220 days is condoned as the applicant has shown sufficient cause, and the application is allowed.

Summary

The applicant, Takor Sonalben Bhikaji Vaghaniya, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 220‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The court heard arguments from both sides; the applicant’s counsel argued sufficient cause for the delay, while the respondents opposed the condonation. The judge emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court held that the delay was bona‑fide and granted condonation. The order allowed the application but barred the claimant from claiming interest on any enhanced compensation awarded in the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 220 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Whether interest can be claimed on the enhanced compensation if the appeal succeeds

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation Actfirst appealinterestsubstantial justice

Judgment

     C/CA/5444/2025                                  ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5444 of
                              2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/32952/2025
==========================================================
              TAKOR SONALBEN BHIKHAJI VAGHANIYA
                             Versus
            ASHOKBHAI LAXMANBHAI CHAUDHARY & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
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 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 220 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.

      I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.

      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 6le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 6ling
the First Appeal.

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




                                   Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/5444/2025                                                        ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




         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
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 bona6de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala6de 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 220 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimant
shall      not       claim         interest          on       the       enhanced              amount            of
compensation if succeeds 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 14:34:33




                                                   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