LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED RAJKOTversusDEVJIBHAI @ DEVRAJBHAI GANGARAMBHAI KHANDHAR
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 97‑day delay is condoned as the applicant showed sufficient cause.
Summary
The insurer filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 97‑day delay in filing its First Appeal. The respondent did not appear, and the insurer’s counsel argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not deliberate. The respondents opposed the condonation. The Court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that "sufficient cause" must be liberally interpreted. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the reasons bona fide and without mala‑fide intent. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 97 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5569/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5569 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/33606/2025
==========================================================
LIBERTY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED RAJKOT
Versus
DEVJIBHAI @ DEVRAJBHAI GANGARAMBHAI KHANDHAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 97 days caused in 5ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, respondent No.1 has not appeared. I have
heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 5le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 5ling
the First Appeal.
Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5569/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
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 bona5de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala5de 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 97 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is allowed
and disposed of accordingly.
(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 15:15:48
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.