High Court of Gujarat

PANKAJ JAGIDSHBHAI PATELversusSTATE 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.

Summary

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 151‑day delay in filing a revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that sufficient cause for the delay was shown, while the respondent’s counsel opposed, claiming no sufficient cause. The Court examined the memorandum of application and found the explanation for the delay satisfactory. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and condoned the delay. The order was made absolute.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of 151 days in filing the revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5revision applicationGujarat High Court

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/21171/2025                                ORDER DATED: 06/02/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
            OF DELAY) NO. 21171 of 2025
  In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/40232/2025

=================================================
            PANKAJ JAGIDSHBHAI PATEL
                         Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=================================================
Appearance:
MS HETA S PANCHAL(10896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 06/02/2026

                           ORAL ORDER

1.      By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant seeks condonation of delay of 151 days caused in filing the
captioned revision application.


2.      Rule, returnable forthwith.             Learned advocates for the
respective respondents waive service.


3.      Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties. The


                                  Page 1 of 2
     R/CR.MA/21171/2025                                                             ORDER DATED: 06/02/2026




learned advocate for the applicant, drawing attention of the Court to
the grounds for delay narrated in the application memo, states that
sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay and
accordingly, it is urged that the delay that has caused in filing the
revision application, may be condoned, to which, the learned
advocate for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed, stating
that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay and
accordingly, it is requested to reject the application.


4.       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/31tss6226




 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 06/02/2026 15:44:48



                                                     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