Gujarat High Court
Annapurna Ba Ravirajsinh Raol vs Ravirajsinh @ Bhavanisinh Khumansinh ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5341/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5341 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 31299 of 2025
==========================================================
ANNAPURNA BA RAVIRAJSINH RAOL
Versus
RAVIRAJSINH @ BHAVANISINH KHUMANSINH RAOL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AKSHAT M VYAS(11572) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 07/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
By this application, the applicant has prayed to condone the
delay of 42 days caused in preferring the captioned First Appeal
against the judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Family Court,
Surendranagar.
2. Mr Akshat M. Vyas, learned advocate for the applicant states
that the applicant, comes from a very remote village of Taluka
Rapar, district Kutch and was unaware about the judgment. It is
submitted that the impugned judgment is passed ex parte on
27.05.2025. It was thereafter, that the applicant was informed about
it by the learned advocate that the marriage is dissolved. Since not
very much aware about the nuances of law, she could not take steps
promptly. It is submitted that despite which, the steps were taken
and the appeal was filed with delay of 42 days. Request is made to
condone the delay.
3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
cases of (i) C.K. Prahalada vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2008
(3) GLH 493; (ii) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs. Ujagar Singh
reported in 2010 (2) GLR (NOC) 43; (iii) Dwarkadas Prabhudas Patel
vs. V. Thakore Laxmanji Dhulaji reported in 2008 (1) GLR 870. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5341/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/11/2025
undefined
urged that considering the explanation offered and the principle laid
down by the Apex Court in various judgments, the delay be
condoned.
4. Application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 42
days. In support thereof, explanation is offered. Discernibly,
applicant comes from a very remote area of taluka Rapar, district
Kutch. As she was not aware about the rendition of the judgment,
certified copy was applied on 23.09.2025, which was ready for
delivery on the same day. Clearly, the steps have been taken
promptly and the appeal is filed.
5. It is well-settled that the rules of limitation are not meant to
destroy the rights of the parties, but are meant to see that parties
do not resort to the dilatory tactics, but seek the remedy promptly.
There is no quarrel to the proposition that law of limitation fixes a
life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so
suffered. It has been time and again held that sufficient cause under
section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice.
6. Considering the explanation offered and the quantum of delay
occurred, this Court is of the opinion that the delay deserves to be
condoned. Delay is condoned. Civil Application succeeds and is
accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
BINOY B PILLAI
