IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5467 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/32466/2025 ========================================================== VIJAYKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA CHOKSHI & ANR. Versus RAJENDRA @ RAJUBHAI RESHMABHAI VASAVA & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2 ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2 MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 10 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,7,8 UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,9 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/02/2026 ORAL ORDER This application is :led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 333 days caused in :ling the First Appeal. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants could not :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 :ling the First Appeal. Learned advocate for respective respondents have vehemently opposed the present application. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicants has mentioned suAcient 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 applicants is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘suAcient 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:de and genuine. There is no smack of mala:de 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. In view of the above, the delay of 333 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the applicants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the claimants succeed in the First Appeal. Registry to show name of Mr. Tanmay Karia in First Appeal as learned advocate appearing for respondent No.10. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay