Gujarat High Court
Narendrabhai Vastabhai Leuva vs Parulben W/O Narendrabhai Leuva on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22216/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
22216 of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 36020 of 2024
==========================================================
NARENDRABHAI VASTABHAI LEUVA
Versus
PARULBEN W/O NARENDRABHAI LEUVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGESH G KANADE(3114) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PV PATADIYA(5924) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. H K PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. The learned A.P.P. waives service of Rule for the respondent - State.
2. The present application has been preferred by the present applicant for condonation of delay of 600 days in preferring the restoration application of Criminal Revision Application No.2546 of 2020. It is further submitted by him that earlier, the Court has passed an order to remove office objection and within prescribed time limit, the office objection has not been removed. Hence, the revision was dismissed for Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 22:11:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22216/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined default. Further, it is submitted by him that the delay has been caused because office objection was not removed without reference to the Court and the same has been dismissed. So, the delay caused in preferring the restoration application may be condoned.
3. On the other hand, Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the delay of 600 days is inordinate and no sufficient explanation and cause has been shown, hence, grounds stated in the present application for condoning the delay are not satisfactory and, therefore, delay may not be condoned.
4. Heard the submissions made by the learned advocates for respective parties. As pe the catena of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the technicality has been treated against the substantial justice, then Court has to give preference to the substantial justice. Considering the averments made in the present application, the grounds stated in the present application for condoning the delay are found to be genuine and satisfactory to this Court. Hence, the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 22:11:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/22216/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined present application deserves consideration.
5. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Delay of 600 days caused in preferring the restoration application of Criminal Revision Application No.2546 of 2020 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) JCP Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Mon Jul 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 21 22:11:10 IST 2025