C/CA/5306/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5306 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/30164/2025 ========================================================== BHURABHAI LAXMANBHAI SOLANKI & ANR. Versus MAHAVIR PRASAD MITHULAL TELI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS POOJA H HOTCHANDANI(7765) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST SERVED 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 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 48 days caused in filing the First Appeal. [2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have chosen not to appear before this Court. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicants and learned advocate for respondent No.3. [3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicant could not file the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the First Appeal. [4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have vehemently opposed the present application. Page 1 of 2 C/CA/5306/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/01/2026 [5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have mentioned sufÏcient 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 ‘sufÏcient 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 bonafide and genuine. There is no smack of malafide 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