IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5435 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/28126/2025 ========================================================== FALGUNIBEN HASMUKHBHAI THAKKAR & ORS. Versus MOMBHAI VAJABHAI RATHOD & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3,4 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/01/2026 ORAL ORDER [1.0] This application is 7led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 326 days caused in 7ling the First Appeal. [2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have chosen not to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicants. [3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants could not 7le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 7ling the First Appeal. It is also submitted that the cross appeal has also been 7led by the insurance company. [4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants, the applicants have mentioned su?cient p. 2 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 applicants 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 bona7de and genuine. There is no smack of mala7de or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicants. 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. [5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 326 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay