AJAYSINH POONAMSINH RATHODversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/17326/2026                             ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        17326 of 2026

             In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/29675/2026

==========================================================
                          AJAYSINH POONAMSINH RATHOD
                                      Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SACHIN S. SINDHAV(14625) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. AARTI R. MISTRY(18822) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                                Date : 05/08/2026

                                 ORAL ORDER

        Learned advocate Mr. Parth Chauhan submits that he

has instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent nos.

2 and 3 and seeks permission to file his appearance.

        Registry to accept the same.

1.      Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the

respondent-State. Learned advocate Mr. Parth Chauhan

waives service of rule for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2.      Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates

appearing for the respective parties.




                                    Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/17326/2026                    ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026




3.      The present application seeks condonation of delay of

261 days in preferring the accompanying Criminal Revision

Application challenging the judgment and order passed by

the learned Family Court, Vadodara.

4.      Both the learned advocates jointly submit that the

matter has been amicably settled between the parties and

hence, the delay of 261 days may be condoned and the main

matter may be taken on board.

5.      This Court has considered the rival submissions and

perused the material placed on record.

6.      The law relating to condonation of delay is no longer

res integra. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v.

Mst. Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed that a liberal approach should

ordinarily be adopted while considering applications for

condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice.

The Court observed that refusal to condone delay may result

in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold

and cause of justice being defeated.




                            Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.MA/17326/2026                   ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026




7.      In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in

(1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court has observed that

the length of delay is not material; what is material is the

acceptability of the explanation. It was further held that

unless mala fides or gross negligence are imputable to the

party seeking condonation, the Court should lean in favour

of deciding matters on merits.

8.      The Supreme Court has also reiterated in several

subsequent decisions that while “sufficient cause” must be

established, the expression should receive a pragmatic and

justice-oriented interpretation where refusal to condone

delay would result in denial of a statutory remedy and

where no serious prejudice is demonstrated by the opposite

side.

9.      In the present case, the delay is of 261 days. The

explanation furnished by the applicant cannot be said to be

lacking in bona fides. There is nothing on record to indicate

that the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any

ulterior motive. Equally, no irreparable prejudice is shown

to be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned. On


                           Page 3 of 4
       R/CR.MA/17326/2026                                                      ORDER DATED: 05/08/2026




 the contrary, refusal to condone the delay would result in

 the applicant being deprived of an opportunity to challenge

 the impugned judgment on merits in exercise of the

 revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

 10.       Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the

 explanation tendered by the applicant and the principles

 laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is

 satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for

 condonation                of     delay.        Accordingly,              the       application            is

 allowed.

 11.       The delay of 261 days in filing the Criminal Revision

 Application is condoned.

 12.       Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid term.




                                                                                         (S. V. PINTO,J)
 VASIM S. SAIYED



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 05/08/2026 18:11:19




                                                  Page 4 of 4