IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5550 of 2025 In F/FIRST APPEAL/31991/2025 ========================================================== MANOJ RAMLAL KHATIK & ANR. Versus PRAKASHCHAND PUJILAL AHARI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2 ORTIS LAW OFFICES(12342) for the applicants(s) No. 1,2 DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 13/02/2026 ORAL ORDER This application is 3led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 166 days caused in 3ling the First Appeal. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.3. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicants. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicants that the applicants could not 3le the First Appeal in timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 3ling the First Appeal. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have mentioned su;cient 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 ‘su;cient 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 bona3de and genuine. There is no smack of mala3de 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 166 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that the claimants shall not claim interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the aforesaid period of delay if the claimants succeed in the First Appeal. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay