DIMPLE BHAVESH PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- VIMAL K VYAS
Holding
The court condoned the 30‑day delay and allowed the restoration application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 30‑day delay in filing a restoration application, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent, the State, waived service of notice. The court examined the reasons for the delay and found them sufficiently explained, noting that the delay was not inordinate and that the cause, not the length, is material. Emphasising the principle of substantial justice, the court held that the rule of limitation should be liberally construed and that there was no mala‑fide intent. Consequently, the court allowed the application and condoned the 30‑day delay.
Issues considered
- Whether a 30‑day delay in filing a restoration application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the reasons for delay constitute a sufficient cause for condonation
- Whether the court should apply a liberal construction to the limitation provision
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/24305/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
24305 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/46455/2025
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/30929/2025
==========================================================
DIMPLE BHAVESH PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. M S PADALIYA(7406) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS. ASMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 23/01/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE. Learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel waives service of
notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. The applicants have led the present application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 30
days caused in ling the captioned restoration application.
3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
respective parties and having gone through the averments made
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/24305/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/01/2026
in the application, it appears that the delay caused in preferring
the restoration application has been su%iciently explained. The
delay not being inordinate and as it is settled that in case of
delay, the cause is material and not the length of delay, I am
inclined to allow the present application and to condone the
delay.
5. It is needless to mention that the primary function of the
Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to
advance substantial justice. Rule of limitation is not meant to
destroy the rights of the parties. The Court is aware of the fact
that if delay is not condoned, it would amount to dismissal of the
restoration application at the threshold and there is no
presumption that the delay caused by the applicants is
deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘su%icient cause’ under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal
construction so as to advance substantial justice. Even, the
reasons stated appear to be bona de and genuine. There is no
smack of mala de or dilatory tactics on the part of the
applicants.
6. In view of the above, the present application is allowed.
The delay of 30 days caused in preferring the restoration
application is hereby condoned. Rule made absolute.
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
AMAR SINGH
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AMAR SINGH(HC01081), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/01/2026 17:38:22
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.