IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5432 of 2025 In F/CROSS OBJECTION/29981/2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL/2665/2025 ========================================================== MIXIKABEN NALINKUMAR PATEL & ORS. Versus MANISHBHAI YOGESHBHAI AGRAWAL & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 08/01/2026 ORAL ORDER [1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 21 days caused in filing the Cross Objection in First Appeal No.2665/2025. [2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. [3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants could not file the Cross Objection in First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay. [4.0] Learned advocate for respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the present application. [5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have p. 2 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 Cross Objections 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 reasons stated in paragraph 4 of the application 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 21 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Cross Objections to be listed alongwith First Appeal No.2665/2025 subject to removal of ofÏce objections, if any. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay