1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Diljit @ Miki Banshilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat

High Court Of Gujarat|25 February, 2019
DILJIT @ MIKI BANSHILAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:
MR NM KAPADIA for the PETITIONER(s) No.1 MS CHETNA SHAH, APP for the RESPONDENT(s) No.1 RULE SERVED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 25/02/2019 IA ORDER
1. The present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("the Act" for brevity) has been preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 84 days caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application against the judgment and order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the learned Family Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2271 of 2011.
2. Reasons for delay caused in preferring the revision application are narrated in paras 2 to 4 of the application.
3. Learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami states that he has instructions to appear for respondent no.2. He further states that he has no objection if the delay of 84 days caused in filing criminal revision application may be condoned.
4. The words, "Sufficient cause for not making application Page 1 of 2 R/CR.RA/869/2018 IA ORDER within the period of limitation" should be applied in a reasonable and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the type of the case. The expression "sufficient cause" in section 5 of the Act needs liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when the delay is not on account of any negligence or inaction or want of bona fide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant. In nutshell, the decisive factor for condonation of delay is not length of delay but sufficiency and satisfactory explanation. Since there is nothing on record so as to infer inaction or want of bona fide that can be attributed to the applicant, the applicant cannot be non-suited at threshold and thus, cannot be deprived of substantial justice which has been made available to the applicant by way of statutory application. In order to advance substantial justice to the applicant and as the explanation for delay does not smack mala fide, the delay caused in preferring the revision application is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • S H Vora