Gujarat High Court
Champakbhai Manibhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2022
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.MA/10711/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 10711 of 2021
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 418 of 2021
==========================================================
CHAMPAKBHAI MANIBHAI RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
SHAILI A SHAH(8832) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHRIRAJ D SHAH(10475) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR RC KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 07/07/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the applicant seeks condonation of delay caused in filing
the R/Criminal Revision Application No. 418 of 2021 against
the judgment and order dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Navsari in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 19 of 2018.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the delay
in question has been occurred because of making try of
settlement by the applicant as well as getting advice from the
learned advocate as well as managing the certain required
papers and the said delay was neither intentional nor
R/CR.MA/10711/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the applicant
but has occurred due to effort of settlement as well as
formalities. Ultimately, it was requested by learned advocate
for the applicant to allow present application.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent
No.2 to 4 have strongly objected the submissions made by
learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that
applicant has made an inordinate delay in filing captioned
revision application. That, version of the applicant about
searching advocate for huge time is not believable. That, no
plausible or sufficient explanation has been provided by the
applicant with regard to the exorbitant delay caused in filing
captioned revision application, and therefore, such inordinate,
unreasonable and unexplained delay should not be condoned.
Hence, learned advocate for the respondents no.2 to 4 has
requested not to exercise the powers in favour of the applicant
by condoning the delay as sought for by the applicant and
dismiss the present application.
5. Learned APP for the respondent no.1-State has objected
the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant
and submitted that the delay caused in preferring captioned
revision application may not be condoned.
6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and more
R/CR.MA/10711/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2022
particularly considering the averments made in the
memorandum of application, this Court is of the view that the
delay caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application has
been sufficiently explained.
7. The application, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly,
allowed. The delay caused in filing the Criminal Revision
Application No. 418 of 2021 is hereby condoned.
Present application stands disposed of. Rule is made
absolute.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
K. S. DARJI
