GAJANAN GARMENTS THRO KAILASHBHAI BAJRANGLAL BAJAJversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/5274/2026                            ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        5274 of 2026

              In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/8993/2026

==========================================================
GAJANAN GARMENTS THRO KAILASHBHAI BAJRANGLAL BAJAJ & ANR.
                         Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KURVEN K DESAI(7786) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR SUNIL M AGRAWAL(1796) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV DHAGAT APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 29/04/2026

                                 ORDER


1.     Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
       parties.


2.     By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation
       Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay
       of 89 days occurred in preferring the application.


3.     Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant
       was suffering from financial crunch and thus, could not seek
       legal assistance in time and thus, there is a delay in filing the
       application.


4.     Learned APP for the respondent–State submits that the delay
       in filing the application is not sufficiently explained and


                                Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.MA/5274/2026                               ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026




       therefore, the present application may be rejected.


5.     In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and
       Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC
       1353, it has been observed as under:-


                “3. The legislature has conferred the power to
                condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the
                Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable
                the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by
                disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression
                "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is
                adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply
                the law in a meaningful manner which subserves
                the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for
                the existence of the institution of Courts. It is
                common knowledge that this Court has been
                making a justifiably liberal approach in matters
                instituted in this Court. But the message does
                not appear to have percolated down to all the
                other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal
                approach is adopted on principle as it is realized
                that:-


                1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit
                by lodging an appeal late.

                2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a
                meritorious matter being thrown out at the very
                threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As
                against this when delay is condoned the highest
                that can happen is that a cause would be
                decided on merits after hearing the parties.

                3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does
                not mean that a pedantic approach should be
                made. Why not every hour's delay, every
                second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in
                a rational common sense pragmatic manner.




                                   Page 2 of 3
           R/CR.MA/5274/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026




                       4. When substantial justice and technical
                       considerations are pitted against each other,
                       cause of substantial justice deserves to be
                       preferred for the other side cannot claim to have
                       vested right in injustice being done because of a
                       non-deliberate delay.

                       5. There is no presumption that delay is
                       occasioned deliberately, or on account of
                       culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides.
                       A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting
                       to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.

                       6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected
                       not on account of its power to legalize injustice
                       on technical grounds but because it is capable of
                       removing injustice and is expected to do so.”


     6.       In view of the principles laid down in the above-referred
              decision, considering the averments made in the application
              and as the delay is sufficiently explained, the delay of 89 days
              occurred in filing the application deserves to be condoned and
              is hereby condoned.


     7.       Accordingly, the present application is allowed.


     8.       Let the main matter be listed today itself.




                                                                                            (GITA GOPI,J)
     PARMAR KRISH/110

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PARMAR KRISH(HC02348), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/04/2026 18:40:53




                                                     Page 3 of 3