IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5648 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/33562/2025 ========================================================== KASHIBEN LAXMANBHAI NAT & ORS. Versus TARIFKHAN MUSTUFAKHAN BIN SAHABUDDIN MEV (KHAN) & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2,3 NOTICE SERVED 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 : 09/01/2026 ORAL ORDER [1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 12 days caused in filing the First Appeal. [2.0] Though served, insurance company has not remained present. [3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants 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] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the applicants, 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 p. 2 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 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. [5.0] In view of the above, the delay of 12 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay