[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Xxxx Through Balvantbhai Masabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6977/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
6977 of 2026
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/10303/2026
==========================================================
XXXX THROUGH BALVANTBHAI MASABHAI MAKWANA FATHE OF CHILD
CONFLICT WITH LAW
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS RAKSHA S KHATED(12987) 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
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate Ms. Raksha S.Khated for the applicant
submitted that the delay of 51 days occurred in preferring the
Revision Application. Advocate Ms. Khated submitted that the
applicant is guardian of the juvenile, who was struggling
because of lack of proper assistance and delay has caused on
account of arranging funds and that it was not deliberate or
intonational.
2. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6977/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026
undefined
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 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."
3. 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 of 51 days caused in filing
the revision application is condoned. The application is allowed.
The main matter be listed in regular course.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/12
