THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusGITABEN JASVANTBHAI PARMAR
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court condoned the 58‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation.
Summary
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 58‑day delay in filing its first appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The respondent’s counsel, though on sick leave, did not object to the condonation. The court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that sufficient cause must be liberally considered. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the applicant’s reasons bona fide and granted the condonation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 58 days in filing the first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5784/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5784 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/23451/2025
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
GITABEN JASVANTBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 13/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Ms. Dimple Thaker, learned counsel appearing for the
applicant states that though Mr. Hiren Modi, learned counsel for the
respondents is on sick note today, he has no objection if delay is
condoned.
2. This application is led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of 58 days caused in ling the First Appeal.
3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that
the applicant could not le First Appeal in timely fashion because of
the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has
requested to condone the delay caused in ling the First Appeal.
4. 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5784/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026
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 bona de and genuine. There is no smack of mala de 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.
5. In view of the above, delay of 58 days as explained in memo of
the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 13/02/2026 16:23:10
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.