IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2819 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/9157/2025 ========================================================== JITENDRA HASMUKHRAI JANI Versus LHS AND LRS OF THE DECEASED ALPESH BABUBHAI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 HARSHIT M KARATHIA(7916) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR K B VIRVADIYA(11272) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.2 MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Respondent(s) No. 1.1 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1.3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 17/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1) Though served, none appears for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 2) This application is led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 770 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 p. 1 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. 5) In view of the above, more particularly the reasons mentioned in paragraph 2 and 3 thereof, delay of 770 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. However, considering the negligent approach on the part of the applicant, the applicant shall pay exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- to respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.3. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT p. 2 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 17/02/2026 16:50:21