Patel Anilbhai Dhanjibhai vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 1736 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Patel Anilbhai Dhanjibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 27 March, 2026

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.MA/7182/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                                               7182 of 2026

                                    In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/12637/2026

                      ==========================================================
                                                  PATEL ANILBHAI DHANJIBHAI
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) 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 Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the applicant submitted that Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited. Referring to the order passed by the appellate Court on pursis below Exh.6, Mr. Thakore stated that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has been deposited. Mr. Thakore submitted that the delay of 500 days occurred in preferring the Revision Application.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/7182/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/7182/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

undefined

and circumstances of the case, the delay of 500 days caused in filing the revision application is condoned. The application is allowed. The main matter be listed today itself.

(GITA GOPI,J) Pankaj/20