Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

SALMANBHAI YAKUBBHAI VAHORAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

Disposal
38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH

Holding

The Court held that the delay was sufficiently explained and therefore condoned.

Summary

The applicant filed a criminal revision application 32 days after the prescribed period and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicant's counsel argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay, while the respondent's counsel contended that no such cause was shown. The Court examined the memorandum of application and the explanations offered for the delay. Finding that the reasons provided were adequate, the Court concluded that the delay could be condoned. Consequently, the application for condonation was allowed and the delay was formally excused.

Issues considered

  • Whether the 32‑day delay in filing the revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5revision applicationcriminal procedure

Judgment

      R/CR.MA/23742/2025                            ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
           OF DELAY) NO. 23742 of 2025

      In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/43605/2025

=================================================
            SALMANBHAI YAKUBBHAI VAHORA
                         Versus
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
DR. HIREN S SOMAIYA(8031) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) 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 32 days caused in filing the
captioned revision application.


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


2.1      The learned advocate for the applicant has taken this Court
through the averments made in this application and stated that in


                                  Page 1 of 2
              R/CR.MA/23742/2025                                                             ORDER DATED: 06/01/2026




       view of sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay in filing
       the revision application, he urged to allow this application, to which,
       the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 has strongly opposed
       stating that no cause, much less, sufficient cause is shown to
       condone the delay and accordingly, he prayed to reject this
       application.


       3.         Having heard and considering the averments made in the
       memorandum of application, 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/58tss6126




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 17:04:14




                                                             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

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.