ASALAMBHAI AAMADBHAI GANDHARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/5903/2026                                ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        5903 of 2026
                             In
         F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/8285/2026

================================================================
                       ASALAMBHAI AAMADBHAI GANDHAR
                                   Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHADRAY R KAPADIYA(11640) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. VIJAYKUMAR R TAKODIYA(14360) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 12/03/2026

                               ORAL ORDER


  1. This       Application      has       been   filed    praying            for
     condonation of delay of 35 days in filing of the above
     Criminal Revision Application.


  2. Learned advocate for the applicant Mr. Harshadray R.
     Kapadia submitted that the cheque amount has
     already been paid and the parties have settled the
     matter. It is further submitted that the afÏdavit of the
     complainant verifies the fact of settlement.                        It is
     submitted that all these aspects / factors have
     contributed to the above delay.



                                  Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/5903/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
  the applicant had enough time to prefer a Revision
  Application and each and every delay is required to
  be explained and therefore, urged to reject the
  application.


4. 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 "sufÏcient
           cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to
           enable the courts to apply the law in a meaning- ful 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 con-
           doned 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.
           4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are
           pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice



                                 Page 2 of 3
       R/CR.MA/5903/2026                                                          ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026




                     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.”



     5. Considering the submissions advanced, in view of the
           facts and circumstances of the case especially that
           the applicant had to make arrangements for the
           funds and that the matter is under Section 138 of the
           Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as also the ratio
           laid down in the above judgment, the present
           application is allowed and the delay of 35 days in
           filing of the above Criminal Revision Application is
           condoned.


     6. Let the main matter be listed on MARCH 16, 2026.


                                                                                                  Sd/-
                                                                                              (GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE / DB # 4

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/03/2026 17:39:35




                                                    Page 3 of 3