[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nidhiben W/O Tusharbhai Sojitra D/O ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1751/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
1751 of 2025
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/2647/2025
================================================================
NIDHIBEN W/O TUSHARBHAI SOJITRA D/O PRAKASHBHAI SAKHIYA &
ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY B AMBANI(13896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JYOTI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 20/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Today learned advocate for the applicants Mr. Jay B.
Ambani has filed a sick note. It appears that learned
advocate for the applicants is not interested in
proceeding with the matter.
2. By way of this application, the applicants - the wife and a
minor child aged 11 years have prayed for condonation of
delay of 146 days occurred in preferring the application.
3. The applicant-wife in her application has submitted that
she was suffering from mental and emotional trauma. It
is further submitted in the application that the applicant-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1751/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
wife is staying with her mother and efforts were being
made to settle the dispute. It is also submitted that the
delay was neither intentional nor had occurred due to any
negligence and all these factors have contributed to the
above delay.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State submits that the delay in filing the application is not
sufficiently explained and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1751/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026
undefined
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.
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 146 days occurred in filing the application
deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
8. Let the Criminal Revision Application be listed in due
course.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
CAROLINE / DB # 52
