DHANJIBHAI KISHORBHAI PARMARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 87‑day delay is condoned as there is sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhanjibhai Kishorbhai Parmar, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking restoration of CR.MA No.8305/2020 but delayed filing by 87 days. The petition was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, requesting condonation of the delay. The respondent opposed the condonation, alleging the delay was unjustified. The Court examined the reasons provided, found them genuine and without any mala‑fide intent, and emphasized a liberal approach to "sufficient cause" to further substantial justice. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court held that the delay could be condoned. Consequently, the Court condoned the 87‑day delay and allowed the restoration application.
Issues considered
- Whether the 87‑day delay in filing the restoration application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/27824/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 27824 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/53069/2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/8305/2020
==========================================================
DHANJIBHAI KISHORBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VISHAL K ANANDJIWALA(7798) 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 5led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 87 days caused in 5ling the
application for restoration of CR.MA No.8305/2020.
[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 5le 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 5ling 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/27824/2025 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned suAcient 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 ‘suAcient 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
bona5de and genuine. There is no smack of mala5de 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 87 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 14:45:42
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.