PATEL HITESHBHAI MADHUSUDANBHAI PROPRIETOR OF SHRI ASHAPURA PACKAGINGversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/3054/2026                            ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        3054 of 2026
                             In
         F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/5061/2026
==========================================================
     PATEL HITESHBHAI MADHUSUDANBHAI PROPRIETOR OF SHRI
                     ASHAPURA PACKAGING
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 20/03/2026

                                ORDER


1.     Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
       parties.


2.     By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation
       Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay
       of 49 days occurred in preferring the application.


3.     Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant
       was suffering from financial crunch and thus, could not seek
       legal assistance in time and thus, there is a delay in filing the
       application.


4.     Learned APP for the respondent–State submits that the delay
       in filing the application is not sufficiently explained and



                                Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.MA/3054/2026                               ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026




       therefore, the present application may be rejected.


5.     In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
       Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC
       1353, it has been observed as under:-


                “3. The legislature has conferred the power to
                condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the
                Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable
                the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by
                disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression
                "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is
                adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply
                the law in a meaningful manner which subserves
                the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for
                the existence of the institution of Courts. It is
                common knowledge that this Court has been
                making a justifiably liberal approach in matters
                instituted in this Court. But the message does
                not appear to have percolated down to all the
                other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal
                approach is adopted on principle as it is realized
                that:-


                1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit
                by lodging an appeal late.

                2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
                meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
                threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
                against this when delay is condoned the highest
                that can happen is that a cause would be
                decided on merits after hearing the parties.

                3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does
                not mean that a pedantic approach should be
                made. Why not every hour's delay, every
                second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in
                a rational common sense pragmatic manner.




                                   Page 2 of 3
     R/CR.MA/3054/2026                                                            ORDER DATED: 20/03/2026




                   4. When substantial justice and technical
                   considerations are pitted against each other,
                   cause of substantial justice deserves to be
                   preferred for the other side cannot claim to have
                   vested right in injustice being done because of a
                   non-deliberate delay.

                   5. There is no presumption that delay is
                   occasioned deliberately, or on account of
                   culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides.
                   A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting
                   to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

                   6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected
                   not on account of its power to legalize injustice
                   on technical grounds but because it is capable of
                   removing injustice and is expected to do so.”


6.       In view of the principles laid down in the above-referred
         decision, considering the averments made in the application
         and as the delay is sufficiently explained, the delay of 49 days
         occurred in filing the application deserves to be condoned and
         is hereby condoned.


7.       Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is
         directed to list the main matter for hearing today.



                                                                                               (GITA GOPI,J)
         Maulik



 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/03/2026 18:00:33




                                                    Page 3 of 3