JAYANTILAL BHAVARLAL JAINversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The Court held that the 132‑day delay is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The petitioners sought condonation of a 132‑day delay in filing an application for restoration of Special Criminal Application No. 3443/2025, which had been dismissed for non‑prosecution. The delay was pleaded to be caused by sufficient cause and not by any malafide or dilatory intent. The Court examined the liberal scope of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that limitation rules should not defeat substantial justice. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the Court found the petitioners’ explanation bona‑fide. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, allowed the restoration application, and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 132 days in filing a restoration application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/7086/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
NO. 7086 of 2026
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/12555/2026
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION/3443/2025
==========================================================
JAYANTILAL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. R. K. RAJPUT(6988) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS. DHRUVI S. TRIVEDI(18414) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 132 days caused in filing the
application for restoration of Special Criminal Application
No.3443/2025 which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties, the applicants have
mentioned sufficient 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.
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/7086/2026 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
In view thereof, the words ‘sufficient 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
bonafide and genuine. There is no smack of malafide or dilatory
tactics on the part of the applicants. 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.
In view of the above, the delay of 132 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(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 17/04/2026 14:57:32
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.