AMRUTABEN VITTHALBHAI DHANJAversusNEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 35‑day delay and allowed the application for restoration of the cross‑objection.
Summary
The applicants filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 35‑day delay in filing an application for restoration of a cross‑objection in First Appeal No. 2873/2024. They argued that the delay was caused by reasons explained in their memorandum and was not deliberate. The Court examined whether the delay constituted sufficient cause and emphasized a liberal approach to advance substantial justice, noting no malafide intent. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Court held that the reasons were bona‑fide and genuine. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the restoration application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 35 days in filing an application for restoration of a cross‑objection can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5528/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5528 of
2025
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION/34020/2025
In F/CROSS OBJECTION/14647/2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL/2873/2024
==========================================================
AMRUTABEN VITTHALBHAI DHANJA & ORS.
Versus
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 08/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 35 days caused in filing the
application for restoration of Cross Objection in First Appeal
No.2873/2024, which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution
for non-removal of ofÏce objections.
[2.0] I have heard the learned advocate for the applicants.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not file the application for restoration
of Cross Objection in First Appeal in timely fashion because of
the reasons mentioned in para 3 of the application and therefore,
has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the
application for restoration of Cross Objection in First Appeal.
[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned sufÏcient
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5528/2025 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2026
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
restoration application at threshold and there is no presumption
that the delay caused by the applicant is deliberate. In view
thereof, the words ‘sufÏcient 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
bonafide and genuine. There is no smack of malafide 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 35 days as explained in
para 3 of the memo 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 08/01/2026 14:32:29
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.