High Court of Gujarat

ILABEN BAKULBHAI PATELversusVISHAL DHARMENDRABHAI PARIKH

Disposal: 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
Bench: HASMUKH D SUTHAR

Holding

The delay of 216 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 216‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. The court examined the reasons provided, noting that the delay was not deliberate and that the applicant had a bona‑fide cause. Emphasising the principle of substantial justice, the court held that the words ‘sufficient cause’ merit liberal interpretation. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123, the court found no mala‑fide intent. Consequently, the delay was condoned, the application was allowed, and the applicant was barred from claiming interest on any enhanced compensation for the period of delay if the appeal succeeds.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 216 days in filing the First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Whether interest can be claimed on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delaylimitationSection 5first appealsubstantial justiceinterestcompensation

Judgment

     C/CA/5812/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5812 of
                             2025
                In F/FIRST APPEAL/32804/2025
==========================================================
                   ILABEN BAKULBHAI PATEL
                            Versus
            VISHAL DHARMENDRABHAI PARIKH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
  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 216 days caused in 4ling the First
Appeal.

      Though served, respondent No.3 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/5812/2025                                                          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 216 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 claimant shall not claim interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the
claimant succeeds in the First Appeal.


           Registry to show name of Mr. R.M. Meena in First Appeal as
learned advocate appearing for respondent No.4.


                                                                           (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 15:14:48


                                                      Page 2 of 2

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search