High Court of Gujarat

MANSURI ISMAILBHAI MAHAMMADHANIFversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

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

Holding

The delay of 86 days in filing the revision application is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Summary

Mansuri Ismailbhai Mahamadhanif filed a criminal revision application 86 days after the prescribed period and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent State of Gujarat did not appear. The court examined the memorandum of application, particularly the explanation for the delay, and found it satisfactory. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay, making the rule absolute. The order was signed by Justice P. M. Raval on 9 January 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the 86‑day delay in filing the revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

Legislation cited

Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5revision applicationcriminal procedure

Judgment

     R/CR.MA/17218/2025                           ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
           OF DELAY) NO. 17218 of 2025

     In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/33870/2025

=================================================
        MANSURI ISMAILBHAI MAHAMMADHANIF
                         Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MS. MAYURI P CHAUHAN(7069) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

                           Date : 09/01/2026

                            ORAL ORDER

1.      By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant seeks condonation of delay of 86 days caused in filing the
captioned revision application.


2.      Though notice is served, none appears for the respondent
No. 2.


3.      Heard, the learned advocates for the applicant.


                                  Page 1 of 2
            R/CR.MA/17218/2025                                                            ORDER DATED: 09/01/2026




     4.          Having heard and considering the averments made in the
     memorandum of application, more particularly, paragraph 3 thereof,
     the 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/39tss9126




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 09/01/2026 14:24:11




                                                           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