Zafar Yunus Sareshwala vs State Of Gujarat

Gita Gopi, J

By way of these applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 272 / 273 days respectively caused in preferring the revisions applications.

The learned advocate for the applicant submits that revision applications are proposed to be filed against the order issuing the non-bailable warrant. It is submitted that the applicant was pursuing other matters and was before this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 980 of 2023, where, by way of a reasoned order, certain directions have been issued to him. It is further stated that the applicant is required to follow the order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 980 of 2023. Accordingly, it is submitted that delay has occurred in filing the revision applications.

In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others, 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:-

Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.”

Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and considering the averments made in the applications and as the delay is sufficiently explained, as the cause shown is of pursuing the other matters and that, the applications are required to be heard on merits, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay caused in filing the revision applications deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.

The applications are allowed accordingly. Main revision applications be listed tomorrow i.e. 9th August 2023.