Gujarat High Court
Sanghvi Mehulkumar Rasiklal vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2024
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5726/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
5726 of 2021
In
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 256 of 2021
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 256 of 2021
==========================================================
SANGHVI MEHULKUMAR RASIKLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV N SHETH(5337) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
JIGNESHKUMAR M NAYAK(8558) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 26/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
Order in Criminal Misc. Application
1. The present application has been filed
for condonation of delay of 75 days caused in
filing the revision application.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant
states that delay of 75 days occurred, since the
applicant belongs to Katargam, Surat and the case
was tried at Mahesana, thus, has no knowledge
about passing of the judgment by the trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5726/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
It is further submitted that due to outbreak of
Covid-19 pandemic, he could not apply for
certified copy, and thus, delay of 75 days caused
in preferring the revision.
3. 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.
4. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5726/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
"sufficient cause" employed by the
legislature is adequately elastic to
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 condoned
the highest that can happen is that
a cause would be decided on merits
after hearing the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5726/2021 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/5726/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2024
undefined
capable of removing injustice and is
expected to do so."
5. 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. Rule is
made absolute.
Order in Revision Application
Advocate Mr. Vaibhav N.Sheth states that he
has instructions that the parties have settled
the matter, and, thus under instruction seeks
permission to withdraw the present revision
application. Permission, as prayed for is
granted. The matter is disposed of as withdrawn.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj
