[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nayankumar Vinodkumar Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6848/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
6848 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/11587/2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6862 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11583 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6893 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11586 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6899 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11589 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6911 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11588 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6919 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11585 of 2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 6974 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 11584 of 2026
==========================================================
NAYANKUMAR VINODKUMAR SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MIHIR B. SUKHADWALA(18273) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS RIYAH Z SINDHI(12457) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/03/2026
Page 1 of 3
Uploaded by MR PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 28 00:23:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6848/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
COMMON ORDER
1. The appellate Court's order reflects that 20% of the
cheque amount has been deposited.
2. Learned advocate Ms. Riyah Z.Sindhi submitted that the
delay of 23 days occurred in all the matters, however, in
Criminal Misc. Application No.6893 of 2026 the delay of 10
days occurred in preferring the Revision Applications.
Advocate Ms. Sindhi submitted that delay has caused because
the applicant could not make arrangement for the funds and
because of financial crunch and difficulty in engaging the
advocate the delay has been caused.
3. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6848/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
against this when delay is con- doned 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.
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."
4. Considering the averments made in the application and
as the delay is sufficiently explained and in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case, the delay caused in filing the
revision applications are condoned. The applications are
allowed. The main matters be listed today itself.
Office to place copy of this order in each matter.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/2 to 5, 7, 8 and 11
