Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Laxmanbhai Hemsingbhai @ Himsingbhai ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 760 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Laxmanbhai Hemsingbhai @ Himsingbhai ... on 24 February, 2026

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/CA/1079/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026

                                                                                                               undefined




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1079 of
                                                       2025
                                           In F/FIRST APPEAL/4439/2025
                       ==========================================================
                                   ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                                       Versus
                           LAXMANBHAI HEMSINGBHAI @ HIMSINGBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3.2,3.3,3.4
                       RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 3.1
                       ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 24/02/2026
                                                            ORAL ORDER

This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 411 days caused in filing the First Appeal.

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 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 applicant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1079/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/02/2026

undefined

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 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 411 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

Ajay