VINTESJI GOVINDJI SAGARversusKIRTIBEN VINTESJI SAGAR
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The Court condoned the 130‑day delay and allowed the application.
Summary
The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 130‑day delay in filing under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Respondents 1 and 2 opposed, arguing the applicant had not complied with a family court order and possessed sufficient income, while the State counsel said the delay was not explained. The applicant contended he could not afford the High Court advocate’s fees. The Court examined the explanation offered and, relying on established principles, found the delay sufficiently explained. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, ordered the applicant to deposit Rs 5,000 as costs to the respondent, and directed that the matter be listed only after payment. The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 130 days in filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be condoned.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/4786/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
4786 of 2026
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/8088/2026
==========================================================
VINTESJI GOVINDJI SAGAR
Versus
KIRTIBEN VINTESJI SAGAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARATKUMAR K VIZODA(8026) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS JYOTI BHATT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 10/04/2026
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 130 days occurred in preferring the application.
3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are present before this Court and
have resisted the application with a prayer for condoning the
delay stating that the applicant has failed to comply the order
of the family Court. The amount as ordered is very meager to
the actual earning of the applicant and stated that the
grounds raised are false and he is having a huge income.
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/4786/2026 ORDER DATED: 10/04/2026
4. Learned APP for the respondent–State submits that the delay
in filing the application is not sufficiently explained and
therefore, the present application may be rejected.
5. The applicant has stated that he is not in a financial capacity
to bear the expense of the fees of the advocate of the Gujarat
High Court and is not a position to pay the advocate fees.
5.1 The grounds raised runs contrary to the record since the
applicant is already represented by an advocate, however, as
the matter requires hearing on merits, the delay is condoned.
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 130
days occurred in filing the application deserves to be
condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. The application with the cost to be paid to the respondent.
The applicant, thus, is directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as cost
before the Registry.
7.1 Only on the payment of the cost, the impugned matter should
be listed.
8. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
(GITA GOPI,J)
PARMAR KRISH/121
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/04/2026 17:35:35
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.