GITABEN WD/O. GAJENDRABHAI MANIYABHAI CHAUDHARIversusDILIPBHAI SUKABHAI PATEL
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The delay of 147 days is condoned; the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 147‑day delay in filing their First Appeal. The court noted that the respondents, except for one, did not appear, and heard the applicant’s counsel. It observed that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice and that there was no evidence of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court held that the reasons given constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the court condoned the delay, allowed the application, and disposed of the matter.
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
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5809/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5809 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/33786/2025
==========================================================
GITABEN WD/O. GAJENDRABHAI MANIYABHAI CHAUDHARI & ORS.
Versus
DILIPBHAI SUKABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
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 147 days caused in 6ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, respondent No.3 has not appeared. I have
heard the learned advocate for the applicants.
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.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the applicants, 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
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5809/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
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 147 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(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 15:15:05
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.