C/CA/3369/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3369 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 18128 of 2025 ========================================================== UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus ISHAVARBHAI NARUNBHAI RUDANI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/12/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.1. 2. This application is led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 87 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. Learned advocate for respective respondents have vehemently opposed the present application. 5. 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 C/CA/3369/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2025 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 bonade and genuine. There is no smack of malade 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. In view of the above, the delay of 87 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 15/12/2025 15:42:02