Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Narendrabhai Punjabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 2146 Guj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2146 Guj
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Narendrabhai Punjabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2026

Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/8265/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026

                                                                                                                undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                                               8265 of 2026

                                    In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/14560/2026

                      ==========================================================
                                                NARENDRABHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR UMANG R VYAS(5595) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                      MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                              Date : 09/04/2026

                                                                   ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 208 days occurred in preferring the application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Umang Vyas for the applicant submits that delay of 208 days has occurred since the applicant was expecting settlement of the matter and he is also ready and willing to pay the entire amount.

4. Learned APP for the respondent-State submits that the delay in filing the application is not sufficiently explained and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8265/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026

undefined

therefore, the present application may be rejected.

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 enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful 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.

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/8265/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026

undefined

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 capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so."

6. In view of the principles laid down in the above-referred decision, considering the averments made in the application and as the delay is sufficiently explained, the delay of 208 days occurred in filing the application deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.

7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is directed to list the matter for hearing today.

(GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH/6

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter