High Court of Gujarat
SAIYAD NIJAMUDDIN RASULBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 36-MCA DISPOSED OF
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The five‑day delay is condoned as sufficient cause exists under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Summary
The applicant sought condonation of a five‑day delay in filing a revision application, explaining that the delay was due to arranging funds to engage counsel. The issue was whether such delay could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground of sufficient cause. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others (AIR 1987 SC 1353), emphasizing that the purpose of Section 5 is to enable substantial justice and that delay must be explained in a pragmatic manner. Finding the applicant’s explanation satisfactory and invoking the principle that no presumption of deliberate delay exists, the Court held that the delay was sufficiently explained. Consequently, the five‑day delay was condoned and the application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a five‑day delay in filing the revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground of sufficient cause.
Legislation cited
Subjects
condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5revision applicationsubstantial justicecriminal miscellaneous application
Judgment
R/CR.MA/10123/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
10123 of 2026
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/18351/2026
==========================================================
SAIYAD NIJAMUDDIN RASULBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 30/04/2026
ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 5 days caused in filing the
revision application.
2. Mr. Jaydeep H.Sindhi, learned advocate for the
applicant states that delay has occurred since the
applicant was arranging for funds for engaging the
Advocate.
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 :-
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/10123/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
“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
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.”
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.MA/10123/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
4. In view of the principle laid down in the above
referred judgment and considering the averments made
in the application and as the delay is sufficiently
explained, the matter requires decision on merits. Hence,
delay of 5 days caused in filing the revision application is
condoned. The application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/2
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/04/2026 17:21:26
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