MADHUSUDAN SITARAM VYASversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court condoned the 53‑day delay as sufficient cause existed and allowed the restoration application.
Summary
Madhusudan Sitaram Vyas filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 53‑day delay in filing a restoration application (SCR.A No.10910/2025). The applicant argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons and not deliberate. The State opposed the condonation. The Court examined the concept of "sufficient cause" and emphasized that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice, noting the absence of mala‑fide intent. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court held the reasons bona‑fide and granted condonation, allowing the restoration application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 53 days in filing a restoration application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/27604/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 27604 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/50272/2025
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION/10910/2025
==========================================================
MADHUSUDAN SITARAM VYAS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DILIP P JOSHI(1819) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 16/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] This application is 2led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 53 days caused in 2ling the
application for restoration of SCR.A No.10910/2025.
[2.0] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
[3.0] It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 2le the application for restoration in
timely fashion because of the reasons mentioned in the
application and therefore, has requested to condone the delay
caused in 2ling the restoration application.
[4.0] Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
[5.0] Considering the submissions made by the learned
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/27604/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned su>cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary
function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are
not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of
the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss
the restoration application at threshold and there is no
presumption that the delay caused by the applicant is deliberate.
In view thereof, the words ‘su>cient cause’ under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act should receive a liberal consideration so as to
advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be
bona2de and genuine. There is no smack of mala2de or dilatory
tactics on the part of the applicant. Further, it is apposite to refer
to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.
Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123.
[6.0] In view of the above, the delay of 53 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/01/2026 14:44:54
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.