JAGDISHBHAI MULJIBHAI KORADIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
- Bench
- P M RAVAL
Holding
The delay of 111 days in filing the revision application was sufficiently explained, and therefore the delay is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Summary
The applicant, Jagdishbhai Muljibhai Koradiya, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 111 days' delay in filing a criminal revision application. Rule was issued returnable forthwith, and the learned advocates for the respondents waived service. The applicant's advocate relied on the grounds narrated in the application memo and submitted that sufficient cause was made out for condonation. Respondent No. 2 opposed the application, arguing that no sufficient cause had been shown and requesting rejection. The Court heard the respective advocates and considered the averments made in the memorandum of application. The Court found that the delay occasioned in preferring the revision application had been sufficiently explained. The application was accordingly allowed, the delay was condoned, and the Rule was made absolute.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 111 days in filing the criminal revision application deserves to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether sufficient cause has been made out by the applicant for condonation of delay?
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
R/CR.MA/297/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION
OF DELAY) NO. 297 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/45/2025
================================================
JAGDISHBHAI MULJIBHAI KORADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================
Appearance:
MR DARSHIT H RAVAL(11887) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS NILAM N CHAUHAN(6635) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 20/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
applicant seeks condonation of delay of 111 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
Page 1 of 2
R/CR.MA/297/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2026
present.
3.1 The learned advocate for the applicant, drawing attention of
the Court to the grounds for delay narrated in the application
memo, states that sufficient cause has been made out for
condonation of delay and accordingly, it is urged that the delay
that has caused in filing the revision application, may be
condoned, to which, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2
has vehemently opposed, stating that no sufficient cause has been
shown to condone the delay and accordingly, it is requested to
reject the application.
4. 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/DB/1/5tss20226
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 20/02/2026 14:17:31
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.