High Court of Gujarat

AFZALBHAI AAMADBHAI MAHIDAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Bench: P M RAVAL

Holding

The court held that the two‑day delay was sufficiently explained and therefore condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

The applicant, Afzalbhai Aamadbhai Mahida, filed a criminal revision application but delayed filing it by two days. He sought condonation of this delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent State of Gujarat did not appear, and the Additional Public Prosecutor waived service. The court heard arguments from the applicant's counsel, Mr. P.S. Datta, and the respondent's counsel, Mr. Rohan Raval. After considering the explanation provided for the delay, the court found it sufficient and granted condonation, allowing the revision application to proceed.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of two days in filing a revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5revision applicationcriminal procedure

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/17893/2025                                ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
            OF DELAY) NO. 17893 of 2025
  In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/31770/2025

=================================================
            AFZALBHAI AAMADBHAI MAHIDA
                          Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR P S DATTA(11324) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
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 this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant seeks condonation of delay of 2 days caused in filing the
captioned revision application.


2.      Though notice is served, none appears for the respondent No.
2.


3.      Rule, returnable forthwith.             Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor waives service for the respondent – State.


                                  Page 1 of 2
          R/CR.MA/17893/2025                                                             ORDER DATED: 22/01/2026




   4.          Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties present.


   5.          Having heard and considering the averments made in the
   memorandum of application, the Court is of the view that the delay
   that has occasioned in preferring the revision application has been
   sufficiently explained. The application, therefore, succeeds and is,
   accordingly, allowed. The delay caused in filing the revision
   application is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.



                                                                                            [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
   hiren/10tss22126




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 14:28:38




                                                          Page 2 of 2

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