HEIRS OF DECD. NAGPALSINH VIKRAMSINH PARMAR v. DILIPKUMAR KIRTIBHAI MISTRI
Court: High Court of Gujarat
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Gujarat judgment dated 2026-02-23. HEIRS OF DECD. NAGPALSINH VIKRAMSINH PARMAR v. DILIPKUMAR KIRTIBHAI MISTRI. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3440 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/18821/2025 ========================================================== HEIRS OF DECD. NAGPALSINH VIKRAMSINH PARMAR & ORS. Versus DILIPKUMAR KIRTIBHAI MISTRI & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR VISHAL C MEHTA(6152) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,1. 1,1. 2,1. 3,1. 4,1. 5 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 1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for respondent No. 1. Registry to show the name of Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company in First Appeal.
2) This application is $led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 153 days caused in $ling the First Appeal. 3) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not $le First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in $ling the First Appeal. 4) Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned su*cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss the First Appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the applicant is deliberate.
In view thereof, the words ‘su*cient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal consideration so as to advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bona$de and genuine. There is no smack of mala$de 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) In view of the above, delay of 153 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/02/2026 14:45:18
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.