IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5401 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/28122/2025 ========================================================== BHANUPRASAD VASRAMBHAI PARMAR Versus KISHORSINH SHANKERBHAI PAGI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR RIYAN M. MANSURI(16448) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== 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 1902 days caused in 昀椀ling the First Appeal. [2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.1 and 3 have not appeared. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant. [3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant could not 昀椀le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 昀椀ling the First Appeal. [4.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned su昀케cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary p. 2 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. [5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 1902 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. It is clari昀椀ed that the applicant shall not be entitled to claim interest for the period of delay i.e. 1902 days in the event the applicant succeeds in the First Appeal. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay