Gautamkumar Muljibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Gautamkumar Muljibhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/3486/2024                                  ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
                                             NO. 3486 of 2024
                           In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 6772 of 2024
                      ==========================================================
                                      GAUTAMKUMAR MULJIBHAI PATEL
                                                    Versus
                                         STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR.CHIRAG B UPADHYAY(6735) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR KAMLESH S KOTAI(6150) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
                      MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================
                        CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                                                           Date : 07/05/2025
                                                            ORAL ORDER

[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State of Gujarat.

[2.0] This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 111 days caused in filing the revision application challenging the judgment and order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.393 of 2015.

[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.

[4.0] Learned APP as well as learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have vehemently opposed the present application.

NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3486/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/05/2025 undefined [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 revision 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 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 111 days as explained in the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed May 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 08 04:06:34 IST 2025