Gujarat High Court
Ganpatbhai Gangaram Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16955/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY) NO. 16955 of 2023
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28533 of 2023
=========================================
GANPATBHAI GANGARAM PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=========================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HEM R DAVE(11961) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR H K PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 07/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule for the respondent - State.
1. Learned advocate for the applicant is not present. However, learned advocate for the respondent is present and has expressed his reluctance owing to the non-compliance on the part of the applicant with the order passed by this Court on 25/09/2025.
2. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that there is a delay of 433 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Application. Learned advocate for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:56:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16955/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined order passed by the learned Magistrate has not been complied with due to the lapse and negligence on the part of the applicant. It further appears that the applicant had unsuccessfully challenged the said order by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2020 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ankleshwar.
3. Though the applicant had deposited some amount as directed by the learned appellate Court, thereafter he failed to pursue the matter diligently and did not extend cooperation for early disposal of the appeal, which ultimately came to be decided on merits. The conduct of the applicant indicates that despite giving repeated assurances, no concrete steps were taken to comply with the directions issued by the Courts below.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K.B.Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Versus Gyanendra Pratap And Others reported in 2024 (4) SCR 616, after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, held followings:-
"10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:56:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16955/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant (See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi and Others (2021) 18 SCC 384). The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay (See P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Anr., (1997) 7 SCC 556). Thus, it is apparent that the words sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant (See Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81). The principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay were succinctly summarized by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649."
5. Indeed, the liberal approach is required to be adopted for condonation of delay provided delay is sufficiently explained. Fewer days delay can receive the liberal approach; but when there is a Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:56:15 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/16955/2023 ORDER DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined gross delay the litigant seeking condonation of delay without explaining it properly and in absence of sufficient explanation, delay is not required to be condoned. No reasons are stated by the applicant and no such satisfactory explanation are mentioned in the application and therefore the present application deserves to be dismissed.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the inordinate delay, this Court does not find any reason to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Registry to refuse the filing number of the main revision application.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) Kaushal Rathod Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR.KAUSHAL.M. RATHOD(HCD0078) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 23:56:15 IST 2025