C/CA/6231/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6231 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/22942/2025 ========================================================== PRAGNESHBHAI GIRISHBHAI BRAHMBHATT Versus LAXMAN BHAGUJI MAHETRE & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MANDEEP SINGH SALUJA(8791) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/02/2026 ORAL ORDER This application is 6led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 359 days caused in 6ling the First Appeal. I have heard the learned advocates for the applicant and respondent No.3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not 6le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 6ling the First Appeal. Learned advocate for respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the present application. Page 1 of 2 C/CA/6231/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/02/2026 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 bona6de and genuine. There is no smack of mala6de 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. In view of the above, the delay of 359 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimant shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the claimant succeeds in the First Appeal. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay p. 2