Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusRAJGOR BIPINBHAI BALDEVBHAI

Disposal
53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE

Holding

The delay of 147 days is condoned and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

Summary

The applicant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 147‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and that the respondents had no objection to condonation. The court noted that the primary purpose of limitation statutes is to serve substantial justice and not to defeat substantive rights, and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Consequently, the court held that the delay was condoned and allowed the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 147 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5first appealsubstantial justice

Judgment

     C/CA/5546/2025                          ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5546 of
                                2025
                  In F/FIRST APPEAL/32188/2025
==========================================================
              NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
                               Versus
              RAJGOR BIPINBHAI BALDEVBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 13/02/2026
                          ORAL ORDER

      This application is 4led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 147 days caused in 4ling the First
Appeal.

      I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant.

      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 4le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 4ling
the First Appeal.

      Though served, respondent No.1 has not appeared and
learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi is on sick note however,
learned advocate for the applicant has stated that leanred
advocate for the original claimants do not have any objection if


                             Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/5546/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




the application is allowed.

         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 bona4de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala4de 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 147 days as explained in
memo of the 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 13/02/2026 14:35:35




                                                    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

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.