High Court of Gujarat
JAYESHBHAI GOPALBHAI SURTIversusHEMLATABEN D/O GOPALBHAI SURTI AND W/O MUKESHBHAI PARMAR
- Disposal
- 36-MCA DISPOSED OF
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The four‑day delay is condoned as sufficient cause exists under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Summary
The applicant sought condonation of a four‑day delay in filing a criminal revision application, citing medical treatment for kidney stones and difficulty obtaining certified copies as reasons. The respondent argued that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The court examined the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353), emphasizing the liberal approach to condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to achieve substantial justice. It held that the applicant’s explanation constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the four‑day delay was condoned and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a four‑day delay in filing the application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
- Whether the applicant’s medical condition and related difficulties amount to sufficient cause for condonation?
Legislation cited
Subjects
condonation of delaySection 5Limitation Act 1963substantial justicecriminal revisionmedical causeprocedural law
Judgment
R/CR.MA/10759/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
10759 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/16373/2026
================================================================
JAYESHBHAI GOPALBHAI SURTI
Versus
HEMLATABEN D/O GOPALBHAI SURTI AND W/O MUKESHBHAI PARMAR
& ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KK TRIVEDI(934) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/05/2026
ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
2. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 4 days occurred in preferring the
application.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant was under medication and was treatment for
kidney stones and that led to the delay in procuring the
certified copies and other relevant documents and all
these factors have contributed to the above delay.
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/10759/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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. 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/10759/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2026
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 4 days occurred in filing the application deserves
to be condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
8. Let the Criminal Revision Application be listed in due
course.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J)
CAROLINE / # 12
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 06/05/2026 17:41:40
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "condonation of delay"Sign in to search