High Court of Gujarat

RAJENDRASINH BHIKHUSINH CHAUHANversusSTATE 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.

Summary

The applicant, Rajendrasinh Bhikhsinh Chauhan, filed a criminal revision application after a delay of 398 days, seeking condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Notice was served on the State of Gujarat, but the respondent did not appear, and the Additional Public Prosecutor waived service. The court heard arguments from the applicant's counsel, Mr. Anil R. Thakor, and the respondent's counsel, Mr. Pranav Dhagat. After considering the explanations provided for the delay, the court found them satisfactory. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay, making the rule absolute.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 398 days in filing a criminal 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/19771/2025                              ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
             OF DELAY) NO. 19771 of 2025
   In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/38365/2025

================================================
        RAJENDRASINH BHIKHUSINH CHAUHAN
                          Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
MR ANIL R. THAKOR(10897) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 20/02/2026

                            ORAL ORDER


1.      By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant seeks condonation of delay of 398 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/19771/2025                                                             ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026




    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/DB/1/3tss20226




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 20/02/2026 14:18:03


                                                          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