CHIRAG DAMJIBHAI SAVALIYA v. DHANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI KHANT
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2026-02-09. CHIRAG DAMJIBHAI SAVALIYA v. DHANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI KHANT. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2175 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/10896/2025 ========================================================== CHIRAG DAMJIBHAI SAVALIYA Versus DHANJIBHAI BACHUBHAI KHANT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicant (s) No. 1 MR MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR JM BAROT(143) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 09/02/2026 ORAL ORDER [1. 0] This application is 8led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1987 days caused in 8ling the First Appeal. [2. 0] I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. [3.
0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not 8le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 8ling the First Appeal. [4. 0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicant, the applicant has mentioned suAcient 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 s is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘suAcient 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 bona8de and genuine. There is no smack of mala8de 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. [5. 0] In view of the above, the delay of 80 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. Registry to show name of Mr. Mandeep Singh Saluja in First Appeal as learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3. (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 15:12:20
Source: High Court of Gujarat. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.