Gujarat High Court
Niravbhai Gopalbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 22 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3176/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
3176 of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 6105 of 2024
==========================================================
NIRAVBHAI GOPALBHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AAMIR S PATHAN(7142) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. AMAN A SHAIKH(8366) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR. H. K. PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 1663 days caused in preferring Criminal Revision Application challenging the judgment and order dated 03.05.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.673 of 2017 passed by learned Family Court, Vadodara.
2. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant. It appears that learned advocate for the respondent has filed a leave note.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant has agitated the grounds that the learned Family Court on account of the fact of non-appearance of the present applicant, proceeded with the ex-parte and recorded the deposition of the respondent No.2 Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3176/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined and thereafter, passed an order dated 16.07.2019 merely upon assumption and presumption whereby the application filed by the respondent No.2 and 3 for maintenance came to be partly allowed and in all, the applicant was directed to pay Rs.7,500/- to the respondent No.2 (Rs.6,000/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.1,500/- to the respondent No.3) from the date of application. Further, the cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- was also directed to be paid by the applicant to respondent No.2.
4. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant, this court does not incline to entertain the present application considering the gross delay i.e. about four years and six months caused in preferring the revision application. The approach on the part of the applicant requires to be seen that after passing of the impugned order, nowhere the applicant has stated or contended that as to why kind of steps have been taken by the applicant to challenge the impugned order. To the contrary, the applicant stated in the application that after service of notice / summons upon him of the maintenance proceedings, in absence his absence, the order of maintenance was passed. No such averments has been made by the applicant as to why more than four and half years time has been consumed to challenge such order. Nothing sort of any material is even placed on record to show that delay was caused bona-fidely.
5. 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 Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3176/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined 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 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 summarised by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 ."
6. 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 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3176/2024 ORDER DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined are stated by the applicant and no such satisfactory explanation are mentioned in the application and therefore the present application deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the captioned application fails and is accordingly dismissed. Registry to refuse the filing number of the main revision application.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J) NITIN MAKWANA Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:08:24 IST 2025