VAIBHAVIBEN D/O. BAKUBHAI KADIYA W/O GAURAVBHAI KANJIBHAI DABHIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/CR.MA/5280/2026                               ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        5280 of 2026

              In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/1517/2026

==========================================================
 VAIBHAVIBEN D/O. BAKUBHAI KADIYA W/O GAURAVBHAI KANJIBHAI
                         DABHI & ANR.
                            Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                              Date : 17/04/2026

                                   ORDER

1.     The present application has been filed for condonation of
delay of 37 days caused in filing the revision application.

2.     Mr.      Mohsin     M.Hakim,        learned   advocate       for        the
applicants states that delay has since the applicant was facing
financial crunch and had the responsibility of school going
minor.

3.     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



                                   Page 1 of 3
     R/CR.MA/5280/2026                                 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026




                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 meaning- ful 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 con- doned 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.

                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.”


4.     In view of the principle laid down in the above referred
judgment and considering the averments made in the


                                    Page 2 of 3
         R/CR.MA/5280/2026                                                           ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026




  application and as the delay is sufficiently explained, the
  matter requires decision on merits. Hence, delay of 37 days
  caused in filing the revision application is condoned. The
  application is allowed.


                                                                                                  (GITA GOPI,J)
  Pankaj/37
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: PANKAJ KUMAR PRASAD(HC00967), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/04/2026 14:57:12




                                                       Page 3 of 3