LAXMIBEN JAYDIPSINH ZALAversusGAJENDRAKUMAR JASHWANTSINH CHAUHAN
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 96 days is condoned, and the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Summary
The applicant, Laxmiben Jaydipsinh Zala, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 96‑day delay in filing a first appeal. No respondents appeared before the court, and the applicant’s counsel, Ms. Pooja H. Hotchandani, argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not deliberate. The court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that "sufficient cause" must be liberally interpreted. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the judge found the applicant’s explanation bona fide and without mala‑fide intent. Consequently, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application, permitting the first appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 96 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/5692/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5692 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/33216/2025
==========================================================
LAXMIBEN JAYDIPSINH ZALA
Versus
GAJENDRAKUMAR JASHWANTSINH CHAUHAN & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 96 days caused in 5ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, none appeared for the respondents. I have
heard the learned advocate for the applicant.
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.
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/5692/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 96 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 14:36:29
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.