C/CA/3463/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3463 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 18155 of 2025 ========================================================== CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ANAND Versus RAJENDRASINH PABAJI SODHA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,8,9 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 5 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4,6,7 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 14/11/2025 ORAL ORDER [1.0] This application is :led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 78 days caused in :ling 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 :le the First Appeal application in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in :ling the restoration application. [4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have vehemently opposed the present application. Page 1 of 2 C/CA/3463/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025 [5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned suBcient 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 ‘suBcient 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. [6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 78 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. (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 14/11/2025 15:47:43