High Court of Gujarat
NAIMISH MAGANBHAI JADAVversusMANAGER, MESON CLUB CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VIVEK VINODBHAI TANK
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The court held that the 122‑day delay is condoned as the applicant provided sufficient cause for the delay.
Summary
The applicant, who is incarcerated, filed a criminal revision application 122 days late, seeking condonation of the delay. The sole issue was whether the delay could be excused under the provisions allowing courts to condone delay for substantial justice. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others (AIR 1987 SC 1353), emphasizing that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted flexibly to avoid defeating meritorious claims. Considering the applicant’s explanation of imprisonment as a sufficient cause, the court found the delay justified. Consequently, the delay was condoned, the revision application was allowed, and it was ordered to be listed for hearing the same day.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 122 days in filing a revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Legislation cited
Subjects
condonation of delaylimitationrevision applicationsubstantial justicecriminal procedure
Judgment
R/CR.MA/7557/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
7557 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/11627/2026
==========================================================
NAIMISH MAGANBHAI JADAV
Versus
MANAGER, MESON CLUB CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VIVEK
VINODBHAI TANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
MASUDIQBAL H RATHOD(7919) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 09/04/2026
ORDER
1. The present application has been filed for
condonation of delay of 122 days caused in filing the
revision application.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant states that the
applicant is in jail, therefore could not timely file the
revision application that has led to delay of 122 days.
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/7557/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
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/7557/2026 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
application and as the delay is sufficiently explained, the
matter requires decision on merits. Hence, delay of 122 days
caused in filing the revision application is condoned. The
application is allowed.
The revision application be listed today itself.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/100
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 09/04/2026 17:47:40
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