High Court of Gujarat

MANOJ RAMLAL KHATIKversusPRAKASHCHAND PUJILAL AHARI

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

Holding

The court condoned the 166‑day delay in filing the first appeal.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 166‑day delay in filing their first appeal. Although the application was served on the respondents, respondent No.3 did not appear before the court. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the delay was caused by genuine reasons and not by any dilatory intent. The court, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice and the liberal interpretation of ‘sufficient cause’, found the reasons bona fide and ordered the delay to be condoned. Consequently, the application was allowed, but the court barred the claimants from claiming interest on any enhanced compensation for the period of delay. The decision also referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 166 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for the delay
Whether interest can be claimed on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation Actfirst appealinterestsubstantial justice

Judgment

     C/CA/5550/2025                              ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5550 of
                               2025
                  In F/FIRST APPEAL/31991/2025
==========================================================
                   MANOJ RAMLAL KHATIK & ANR.
                               Versus
               PRAKASHCHAND PUJILAL AHARI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 13/02/2026
                             ORAL ORDER

      This application is 3led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 166 days caused in 3ling the First
Appeal.

      Though served, none appeared for respondent No.3. I have
heard the learned advocate for the applicants.

      It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants
that the applicants could not 3le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 3ling
the First Appeal.

      Considering     the    submissions      made   by     the     learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
mentioned su;cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary


                                Page 1 of 2
        C/CA/5550/2025                                                         ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026




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 applicants 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 bona3de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala3de or dilatory tactics on
the part of the applicants. 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 166 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimants
shall      not       claim         interest           on      the        enhanced              amount            of
compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the claimants
succeed in the First Appeal.


                                                                        (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 14:25:24




                                                   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