KANTIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI KARGATHIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- P M RAVAL
Holding
The Court held that the delay was sufficiently explained and therefore condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Summary
The petitioners filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delays of 183 and 179 days in filing revision applications. The applicant’s counsel highlighted that the dispute had been amicably settled, a fact conceded by the respondent’s counsel. The court examined the explanations for the delay and, noting the settlement, found the reasons satisfactory. Consequently, the court held that the delay could be condoned. The applications for condonation were therefore allowed and the delay was formally condoned.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 183 and 179 days in filing the revision applications can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 given the amicable settlement between the parties.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/1481/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
OF DELAY) NO. 1481 of 2026
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/1659/2026
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1485 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 2382 of 2026
=================================================
KANTIBHAI KHIMJIBHAI KARGATHIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR P S DATTA(11324) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 22/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By these applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 183 and 179 days
respectively, caused in filing the captioned revision applications.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Kushal A. Desai appears and states that
he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No. 2 – original
complainant. He shall file his Vakalatnama before the registry,
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/1481/2026 ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026
which the registry shall accept.
3. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the
respective respondents waive service.
4. Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties. The
learned advocate for the applicant, while drawing attention of the
Court to the grounds for delay, stated that the matter is amicably
settled between the parties, to which assertion, the learned advocate
for the respondent No. 2 has fairly conceded to. Accordingly, it is
urged that delay caused in preferring the revision applications may
be condoned.
5. Having heard and considering the averments made in the
memorandum of applications, and the fact that the matter is settled
between the parties, the Court is of the view that the delay that has
occasioned in preferring the revision applications has been
sufficiently explained. The applications, therefore, succeed and are,
accordingly, allowed. The delay caused in filing the revision
applications is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/3-4tss22126
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/01/2026 14:32:01
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.