High Court of Gujarat

KASHIBEN LAXMANBHAI NATversusTARIFKHAN MUSTUFAKHAN BIN SAHABUDDIN MEV (KHAN)

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

Holding

The court condoned the 12‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 12‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. The court noted that the insurance company respondent was not present and considered the applicants' explanation as genuine and not dilatory. Emphasising that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice, the court adopted a liberal approach to the concept of ‘sufficient cause’. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found no malafide intent. Consequently, the 12‑day delay was condoned and the application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 12 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 there is any malafide or dilatory intent on the part of the applicants

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5First Appealsufficient causecivil procedure

Judgment

     C/CA/5648/2025                         ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5648 of
                               2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/33562/2025
==========================================================
                KASHIBEN LAXMANBHAI NAT & ORS.
                               Versus
   TARIFKHAN MUSTUFAKHAN BIN SAHABUDDIN MEV (KHAN) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                        Date : 09/01/2026
                         ORAL ORDER


[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 12 days caused in filing the First
Appeal.

[2.0] Though served, insurance company has not remained
present.

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

[4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate
for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned sufÏcient
cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the
Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to


                             Page 1 of 2
       C/CA/5648/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026




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
‘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 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.

[5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 12 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 09/01/2026 15:35:42




                                                    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