Juned Gulamnabi Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Juned Gulamnabi Mansuri vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                           R/CR.MA/22774/2024                                  ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
                                              NO. 22774 of 2024
                           In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 43927 of 2024
                      ==========================================================
                                         JUNED GULAMNABI MANSURI
                                                   Versus
                                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
                      MR ROHAN H RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 29/01/2025

                                                             ORAL ORDER

[1.0] Though served, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have chosen not to appear before this Court.

[2.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 99 days caused in filing the revision application challenging the judgment and order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.478 of 2022.

[3.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the delay was caused purely due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant and there was no malafide intention on the part of the applicant in filing the revision application belatedly and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the revision application.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22774/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined [4.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application.

[5.0] 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 appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the appellant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction 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.

[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 99 days as explained in the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Jan 29 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 30 00:55:56 IST 2025