High Court of Gujarat
SNEHALBA GIRIRAJSINH JADEJAversusGIRIRAJSINH NARENDRASINH JADEJA
- Disposal
- 36-MCA DISPOSED OF
- Bench
- GITA GOPI
Holding
The delay of 131 days is sufficiently explained and is therefore condoned.
Summary
Snehalba Girirajsinh Jadeja and another filed a criminal revision application but delayed filing it by 131 days. They pleaded that they were financially strained, responsible for school‑going children, and could not afford legal counsel, which caused the delay. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the delay was not sufficiently explained. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353), emphasizing the liberal approach to condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when substantial justice is at stake. Finding the applicants’ explanation satisfactory, the Court condoned the 131‑day delay and allowed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 131 days in filing a criminal revision application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Whether the applicants have provided sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
Subjects
condonation of delayLimitation ActSection 5criminal revisionsubstantial justicefinancial hardship
Judgment
R/CR.MA/9721/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
9721 of 2026
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/14229/2026
================================================================
SNEHALBA GIRIRAJSINH JADEJA & ANR.
Versus
GIRIRAJSINH NARENDRASINH JADEJA
================================================================
Appearance:
DIPSIKHA P MISHRA(10116) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/04/2026
ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
2. By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 131 days occurred in preferring
the application.
3. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the
applicant had the responsibility of school going children,
was facing a 昀椀nancial crunch and had no independent
source of income. It is further submitted that the
applicant could not approach an advocate to take legal
advice and all these factors have contributed to the
above delay.
Page 1 of 3
R/CR.MA/9721/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent–
State submits that the delay in 昀椀ling the application is not
su昀케ciently 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 "su昀케cient 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 justi昀椀ably
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
bene昀椀t 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/9721/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2026
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
昀椀des. A litigant does not stand to bene昀椀t 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 su昀케ciently explained, the
delay of 131 days occurred in 昀椀ling the application
deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
8. Let the Criminal Revision Application be listed in due
course.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CAROLINE ANTHONISWAMY(HC00212), Principal pvt Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 27/04/2026 17:44:27
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