VIJAYSINH NARENDRASINH ZALAversusTHAKOR PRAKASHKUMAR MATHURJI
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 147 days is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 147‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. Respondent No.1 did not appear, while counsel for both parties were heard. The applicant argued sufficient cause for the delay, and the court emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that the delay was not deliberate. Citing the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the court adopted a liberal approach to "sufficient cause". Finding the reasons bona fide and no mala‑fide intent, the court condoned the delay, allowed the application, and ordered the matter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 147 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/5804/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5804 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/29975/2025
==========================================================
VIJAYSINH NARENDRASINH ZALA
Versus
THAKOR PRAKASHKUMAR MATHURJI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) 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 4led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 147 days caused in 4ling 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 4le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 4ling
the First Appeal.
Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5804/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
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 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 bona4de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala4de 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 147 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Registry to show name of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati in First
Appeal as learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2.
(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 15:10:18
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.