High Court of Gujarat
IMRANBHAI MUSABHAI AHEMADBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The delay is sufficiently explained and is therefore condoned.
Summary
The petitioner, Imranbhai Musabhai Ahemadbhai Patel, filed a criminal miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 142‑day delay in filing under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He alleged that financial difficulties and his detention in judicial custody prevented him from obtaining legal assistance in time. The State opposed, contending that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353), emphasizing that “sufficient cause” should be interpreted pragmatically to achieve substantial justice. Finding the petitioner’s explanation adequate, the Court condoned the delay and allowed the application, directing the matter to be listed for hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the 142‑day delay in filing the application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Legislation cited
Subjects
condonation of delayLimitation Act 1963Section 5substantial justicejudicial custodycriminal miscellaneous applicationliberal approach
Judgment
R/CR.MA/6381/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
6381 of 2026
In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/10733/2026
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION/2435/2025
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/2700/2025
==========================================================
IMRANBHAI MUSABHAI AHEMADBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADILHUSHAIN M SAIYED(9723) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS JYOTI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 06/04/2026
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 142 days occurred in preferring the application.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant
was suffering from financial crunch and further because he is
in judicial custody, he could not timely get legal assistance
and thus, could not seek legal assistance in time and thus,
there is a delay in filing the application.
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/6381/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
4. Learned APP for the respondent–State submits that the delay
in filing the application is not sufficiently explained and
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
Page 2 of 3
R/CR.MA/6381/2026 ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026
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.”
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 142
days occurred in filing the application deserves to be
condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. Registry is
directed to list the application for hearing on 13.4.2026.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: MAULIK RAJESH PANDYA(HC00205), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 16:26:58
Page 3 of 3
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