RAVAL LALJIBHAI @ LALITBHAI SHAMBHUBHAIversusDASHRATHBHAI MAFABHAI NADIYA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 67‑day delay is condoned as the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 67‑day delay in filing a first appeal. Respondents No.1 and No.2 did not appear, while Respondent No.3 was represented. The court examined the applicant’s explanation and found it to be genuine and not dilatory. Emphasising that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice, the court applied a liberal approach to the term ‘sufficient cause’. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court held that the delay warranted condonation and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 67 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant’s explanation constitutes sufficient cause for condonation
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5470/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5470 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/29978/2025
==========================================================
RAVAL LALJIBHAI @ LALITBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI
Versus
DASHRATHBHAI MAFABHAI NADIYA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.s1 and 2.
2. This application is led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 67 days caused in ling the First Appeal.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the
applicant could not le First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons
mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the
delay caused in ling the First Appeal.
4. 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5470/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/01/2026
Appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by
the applicant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘su)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
bona de and genuine. There is no smack of mala 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. In view of the above, the delay of 67 days as explained in memo of
the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/01/2026 14:49:25
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.