High Court of Gujarat

MAHESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI JOTANGIYAversusHDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

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

Holding

The court held that the 596‑day delay 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 596‑day delay in filing a First Appeal. The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not a dilatory tactic. The respondents opposed the application. The court examined the submissions, emphasizing the need to advance substantial justice and that limitation rules should not destroy rights. Relying on the principle that sufficient cause should receive liberal consideration and citing N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court found the reasons bona fide. Consequently, the delay was condoned, the application was allowed, but the applicant was not entitled to claim interest for the period of delay.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 596 days in filing a First Appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Whether the applicant is entitled to claim interest for the period of delay

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActFirst Appealsubstantial justiceinterest

Judgment

     C/CA/6046/2025                          ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6046 of
                               2025
                 In F/FIRST APPEAL/34096/2025
==========================================================
              MAHESHBHAI PRAVINBHAI JOTANGIYA
                               Versus
          HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                         Date : 09/02/2026
                          ORAL ORDER


[1.0] This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 596 days caused in 7ling the First
Appeal.

[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.

[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 7le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 7ling
the First Appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.




                             Page 1 of 2
            C/CA/6046/2025                                                          ORDER DATED: 09/02/2026




   [5.0] 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 bona7de
   and genuine. There is no smack of mala7de 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.

   [6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 596 days as explained in
   memo of the application is condoned. The application is
   accordingly allowed. It is made clear that the claimant shall not
   be entitled to claim interest for the aforesaid period of delay.
              Registry to show name of Mr. Alkesh Shah in First Appeal as
   learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1.


                                                                             (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 09/02/2026 15:20:33




                                                        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