IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 6221 of 2025 In F/CROSS OBJECTION/34647/2025 In R/FIRST APPEAL/249/2025 ========================================================== SHAILENDRA @ SALENDRA RAMPRAVESH YADAV & ORS. Versus TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR JAINAM M SHAH(17596) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 27/02/2026 ORAL ORDER This application is 4led under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 223 days caused in 4ling the Cross Objection in First Appeal No.249/2025. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned su?cient 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 Objection at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the applicant 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 p. 2 advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bona4de and genuine. There is no smack of mala4de 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. In view of the above, the delay of 223 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay