KIRTIBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL OWNER OF GURUDEV CONSTRUCTIONversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/13770/2026                           ORDER DATED: 09/07/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        13770 of 2026

             In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/25101/2026

==========================================================
KIRTIBHAI KESHAVLAL PATEL OWNER OF GURUDEV CONSTRUCTION
                           Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
URVESH M PRAJAPATI(8878) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
FRESH RULE SERVED BY DS(4509) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                              Date : 09/07/2026

                               ORAL ORDER


1.      Learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Nayak submits that he has

instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent No.2 and

seeks permission to file his appearance.


2.      Registry to accept.


3.      Heard learned advocate Mr. Urvesh M. Prajapati for the

applicant and learned advocate Mr. Jignesh Nayak for the

respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the

respondent No.1-State.


4.      Both the learned advocates jointly submits that the matter



                                  Page 1 of 4
     R/CR.MA/13770/2026                                    ORDER DATED: 09/07/2026




has been amicably settled between the parties hence, the delay

of 176 days in filing the revision application may be condoned

and the main matter may be placed before the Lok Adalat.


5.      The present application seeks condonation of delay of 176

days      in    preferring      the   accompanying         Criminal       Revision

Application challenging the judgment and order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge affirming the conviction and sentence

recorded by the learned Trial Court.


6.      The applicant has explained the delay by stating that after

pronouncement of the impugned judgment, certified copies were

obtained, legal advice was sought and necessary documents

required for filing the revision application were collected. It is

contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate

but occasioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the

applicant.


7.      Learned           counsel   for   the       respondent    opposed            the

application contending that the explanation is not satisfactory

and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause

warranting condonation of delay.


8.      I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

material placed on record.



                                      Page 2 of 4
     R/CR.MA/13770/2026                               ORDER DATED: 09/07/2026




9.      The law relating to condonation of delay is no longer res

integra. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.

Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed that a liberal approach should ordinarily be

adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay

so as to advance substantial justice. The Court observed that

refusal to condone delay may result in a meritorious matter

being thrown out at the threshold and cause of justice being

defeated.


10.     In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in

(1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court has observed that the

length of delay is not material; what is material is the

acceptability of the explanation. It was further held that unless

mala fides or gross negligence are imputable to the party

seeking condonation, the Court should lean in favour of deciding

matters on merits.


11.     The     Supreme   Court    has      also   reiterated    in    several

subsequent decisions that while “sufficient cause” must be

established, the expression should receive a pragmatic and

justice-oriented interpretation where refusal to condone delay

would result in denial of a statutory remedy and where no

serious prejudice is demonstrated by the opposite side.



                                  Page 3 of 4
     R/CR.MA/13770/2026                                                   ORDER DATED: 09/07/2026




12.      In the present case, the delay is of 176 days. The

explanation furnished by the applicant cannot be said to be

lacking in bona fides. There is nothing on record to indicate that

the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any ulterior

motive. Equally, no irreparable prejudice is shown to be caused

to the respondent if the delay is condoned. On the contrary,

refusal to condone the delay would result in the applicant being

deprived of an opportunity to challenge the impugned judgment

on merits in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

13.      Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the

explanation tendered by the applicant and the principles laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is satisfied that

sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, the application is allowed.


14.      The delay of 176 days in filing the Criminal Revision

Application is condoned.


15.      Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid term.




                                                                                     (S. V. PINTO,J)
ROHAN SONI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ROHAN SONI(HC02356), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/07/2026 18:23:00




                                               Page 4 of 4