Gujarat High Court
Nileshkumar Valjibhai Vankar vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6620/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
6620 of 2024
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 27160 of 2019
==========================================================
NILESHKUMAR VALJIBHAI VANKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 26/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application has been filed
for condonation of delay of 26 days caused in
filing the revision application.
2. Affidavit regarding arrears of
maintenance amount is produced on record in
compliance of the order of this Court.
3. Mr. Umarfaruk M.Kharadi, learned
advocate for the applicant states that delay of
26 days occurred, since the applicant belongs to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6620/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
remote area, and after making arrangement for
documents and funds could prefer the revision.
4. Learned APP for the respondent State
submitted that though each day delay has not to
be explained, but sufficient explanation is
required to be placed on record for consideration
of the Court, and, thus urged to reject the
application.
5. In the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji
and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 it has
been observed as under :-
"3. The legislature has conferred
the power to condone delay by
enacting Section 5 of the Indian
Limitation Act of 1963 in order to
enable the Courts to do substantial
justice to parties by disposing of
matters on 'merits'. The expression
"sufficient cause" employed by the
legislature is adequately elastic to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6620/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
enable the courts to apply the law
in a meaning- ful manner which
subserves the ends of justice that
being the life-purpose for the
existence of the institution of
Courts. It is common knowledge that
this Court has been making a
justifiably liberal approach in
matters instituted in this Court.
But the message does not appear to
have percolated down to all the
other Courts in the hierarchy. And
such a liberal approach is adopted
on principle as it is realized
that:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not
stand to benefit by lodging an
appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can
result in a meritorious matter being
thrown out at the very threshold and
cause of justice being defeated. As
against this when delay is con-
doned the highest that can happen is
that a cause would be decided on
merits after hearing the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6620/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
3. "Every day's delay must be
explained" does not mean that a
pedantic approach should be made.
Why not every hour's delay, every
second's delay? The doctrine must be
applied in a rational common sense
pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and
technical considerations are pitted
against each other, cause of
substantial justice deserves to be
preferred for the other side cannot
claim to have vested right in
injustice being done because of a
non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that
delay is occasioned deliberately, or
on account of culpable negligence,
or on account of mala fides. A
litigant does not stand to benefit
by resorting to delay. In fact he
runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary
is respected not on account of its
power to legalize injustice on
technical grounds but because it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6620/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
capable of removing injustice and is
expected to do so."
6. In view of the principle laid down in
the above referred judgment and considering the
averments made in the application and as the
delay is sufficiently explained, the matter
requires decision on merits. Hence, delay of 26
days caused in filing the revision application is
condoned. The application is allowed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj
