High Court of Gujarat

HARESHBHAI SHANKARLAL MURJANIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal: 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Bench: P M RAVAL

Holding

The Court held that the delay was sufficiently explained and therefore condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

Hareshbai Shankarlal Murjani filed a criminal revision application 193 days after the prescribed period and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent State of Gujarat objected, arguing that no sufficient cause was shown. The Court examined the memorandum of application and found that the applicant had adequately explained the delay. Consequently, the Court held that the delay could be condoned. The order therefore allowed the application and granted condonation of the delay.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 193 days in filing a revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5revision applicationcriminal procedureHigh Court of Gujarat

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/17117/2025                                ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
           OF DELAY) NO. 17117 of 2025

     In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/32433/2025

=================================================
          HARESHBHAI SHANKARLAL MURJANI
                        Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHIVAM N THAKKAR(10024) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 06/01/2026

                            ORAL ORDER

1.      By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant seeks condonation of delay of 193 days caused in filing the
captioned revision application.


2.      Rule, returnable forthwith.             Learned advocates for the
respective respondents waive service.


3.      Heard, the learned advocates for the respective parties present.


                                  Page 1 of 2
              R/CR.MA/17117/2025                                                             ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




        3.1       The learned advocate for the applicant took this Court through
        the averments made in this application and stated that sufficient
        cause is made out for condonation of delay and accordingly, it is
        urged that delay may be condoned, to which, learned advocate
        Mr. Chaudhary for the respondent No. 2 vehemently objected to
        contending that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay
        and he, eventually, urged to reject the application.


        4.        Having heard and considering the averments made in the
        memorandum of application, this Court is of the view that the delay
        that has occasioned in preferring the revision application has been
        sufficiently explained. The application, therefore, succeeds and is,
        accordingly, allowed. The delay caused in filing the revision
        application is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.



                                                                                                 [ P. M. Raval, J. ]
        hiren/DB-85tss6126




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/01/2026 17:04:50




                                                              Page 2 of 2

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