LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITEDversusMEVABHAI SABLABHAI GAMAR
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 188 days is condoned, and the application for condonation is allowed.
Summary
The applicant, Liberty General Insurance Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 188‑day delay in filing its first appeal. Respondents Mevabhai Sablbhai Gamar & Ors. were served but did not appear. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice and that sufficient cause should be liberally considered. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the applicant’s reasons bona fide and granted condonation, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 188 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5531/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5531 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/32878/2025
==========================================================
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
Versus
MEVABHAI SABLABHAI GAMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 2led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 188 days caused in 2ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have not
appeared. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 2le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 2ling
the First Appeal.
Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicant, 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5531/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
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 bona2de and genuine. There is no
smack of mala2de 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 188 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(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 23/02/2026 15:15:26
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.