IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5371 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/29249/2025 ========================================================== UNITED INDIA INS. COM. LTD. Versus LATIFA RIJWAN SUNSRA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 12/01/2026 ORAL ORDER [1.0] This application is 昀椀led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 45 days caused in 昀椀ling the First Appeal. [2.0] Though served, driver and owner of o昀昀ending vehicle have chosen not to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned advocate for the original claimant. [3.0] Perusing the application, more particularly para 2 of the applicatino, it appears that the applicant could not 昀椀le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in para 3 of the application as the applicant has made out su昀케cient cause for condonation of delay. Further, 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 p. 2 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. [4.0] In view of the above, the delay of 45 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay