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
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
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
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
