High Court of Gujarat
VARSHABEN BHAVESHBHAI NANANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 36-MCA DISPOSED OF
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The Court condoned the 162‑day delay, holding that the applicant’s explanation satisfied the requirement of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant, who is incarcerated and facing financial hardship, filed a condonation of delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, 162 days after the prescribed period. The respondent State argued that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The Court examined the liberal approach endorsed in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353), emphasizing that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted pragmatically to achieve substantial justice. Finding the applicant's explanation adequate, the Court held that the delay warranted condonation. Consequently, the application was allowed and the main matter was ordered to be listed for hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the 162‑day delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be condoned.
- Whether the applicant’s explanation of financial hardship and incarceration constitutes sufficient cause for the delay.
Legislation cited
Subjects
condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5substantial justicecriminal revisionfinancial hardshipincarceration
Judgment
R/CR.MA/10061/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
10061 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/17822/2026
==========================================================
VARSHABEN BHAVESHBHAI NANANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL V DAVE(3846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 29/04/2026
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 162 days occurred in preferring the application.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the matter
has been settled and total amount has been paid and such
purshis has been executed by the respondents and that the
applicant is in jail and is 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.
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/10061/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
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 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
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.MA/10061/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
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 162
days occurred in filing the application deserves to be
condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is
directed to list the main matter for hearing today.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/04/2026 17:13:20
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search