C/CA/4170/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4170 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24633 of 2025 ========================================================== HAVABAI HAJI TURIYA & ORS. Versus RANJITSINH NIRMALSINH ZALA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 11/12/2025 ORAL ORDER 1) Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the applicants. Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2) This application is 昀椀led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 113 days caused in 昀椀ling the First Appeal. 3) It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not 昀椀le First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 昀椀ling the First Appeal. 4) Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has C/CA/4170/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/12/2025 mentioned su昀케cient cause for condonation of delay in paragraph No.3 of the application. 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昀케cient 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昀椀de and genuine. There is no smack of mala昀椀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, the delay of 113 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) GARVITA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/12/2025 16:36:11