AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
[1.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 8 days caused in filing the First Appeal.
[2.0] Though served, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have chosen not to appear before this Court.
[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] Learned advocate for respective respondents have vehemently opposed the present application.
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have mentioned sufficient 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 First Appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the applicants is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘sufficient 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.
[6.0] In view of the above and considering the fact that the appeal is filed against insurance company, the delay of 8 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.