C/CA/5281/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5281 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/30183/2025 ========================================================== PREMKUMAR SHIVABHAI PARMAR Versus MAHAVIR PRASAD MITHULAL TELI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 MR DHAIRYAWAN D BHATT(11817) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4 NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST NOT RECEIVED BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 12/01/2026 ORAL ORDER [1.0] This application is 9led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 48 days caused in 9ling the First Appeal. [2.0] Though a>ected parties are duly served, they have not appeared. I have heard the learned advocates for the applicant and learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 5. [3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not 9le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 9ling the First Appeal. [4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have vehemently opposed the present application. Page 1 of 2 C/CA/5281/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 [5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned suBcient 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 ‘suBcient 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 bona9de and genuine. There is no smack of mala9de 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. [6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 48 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Registry to show name of learned advocate Mr. Chirayu Mehta in First Appeal as advocate appearing for the original opponent No.3. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay p. 2