[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Maheshbhai Kadvabhai Vasoya vs Keshubhai Babubhai Leela on 10 April, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9119/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
9119 of 2025
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/17630/2025
==========================================================
MAHESHBHAI KADVABHAI VASOYA
Versus
KESHUBHAI BABUBHAI LEELA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HITESH V PATEL(6090) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/04/2026
ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
2. By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay
of 14 days occurred in preferring the application.
3. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate for the applicant submits
that the applicant was suffering from financial crunch and
thus, could not seek legal assistance in time and thus, there is
a delay in filing the application.
4. Learned APP for the respondent-State submits that the delay
in filing the application is not sufficiently explained and
therefore, the present application may be rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9119/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
5. Mr. Hitesh Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no.1
submitted that each day's delay has to be sufficiently
explained since the matter requires hearing on merits.
6. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9119/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
undefined
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 capable of
removing injustice and is expected to do so."
7. 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 14 days
occurred in filing the application deserves to be condoned and
is hereby condoned.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is
directed to list the Revision Application in regular course.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
