KUSUMGAURI GOPALDAS PARSANIYAversusJAGDISHBHAI ISHWARBHAI HEBTARA
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court condoned the 318‑day delay and allowed the application.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 318‑day delay in filing their first appeal. Respondent No.1 did not appear, while counsel for both sides were heard. The court examined the applicants' explanation, finding it bona fide and not a result of mala‑fide or dilatory tactics, and emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Consequently, the delay was condoned, the application was allowed, and the court directed that the claimants could not claim interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 318 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/5799/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5799 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/32938/2025
==========================================================
KUSUMGAURI GOPALDAS PARSANIYA & ANR.
Versus
JAGDISHBHAI ISHWARBHAI HEBTARA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the applicant(s) No. 1,2
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA(436) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 318 days caused in 6ling 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 applicants
that the applicants could not 6le the First Appeal in timely
fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 6ling
the First Appeal.
Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5799/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
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 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 bona6de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala6de 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 318 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of. 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 23/02/2026 15:10:41
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.