LAKHABHAI ANADABHAI SAVSETAversusPRAKASH KUMAR KHER

     R/CR.MA/10415/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        10415 of 2025

             In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/19328/2025

==========================================================
                          LAKHABHAI ANADABHAI SAVSETA
                                     Versus
                           PRAKASH KUMAR KHER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRASHANT V CHAVDA(8510) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NAHUH H PATEL(10530) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAJAN D SHAH(3101) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                  Date : 30/04/2026

                                       ORDER

1.      The       present        application         has   been        filed         for
condonation of delay of 77 days caused in filing the
revision application.

2.      Learned advocate for the applicant states that NOC
has been given by the Bank and total amount has been
deposited and thus, prayed to condone the delay.

3.      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 :-



                                       Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/10415/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026




           “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 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 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.”




                               Page 2 of 3
        R/CR.MA/10415/2025                                                           ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026




  4.          In view of the principle laid down in the above
  referred judgment and considering the averments made
  in the application and as the delay is sufficiently
  explained, the matter requires decision on merits. Hence,
  delay of 77 days caused in filing the revision application
  is condoned. The application is allowed.
              The main revision application be listed today itself.



                                                                                                  (GITA GOPI,J)
  Pankaj/66
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/04/2026 17:32:40




                                                       Page 3 of 3