Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 549
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Nankubhai Dhirubhai Karpada - Applicant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 12301 of 2026 In F/Criminal Misc.Application No. 10789 of 2026 In R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 23591 of 2019 With R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 12302 of 2026 In F/Criminal Misc.Application No. 10796 of 2026
Decided On : 11-06-2026
For the Applicant : Mr. Pawan A. Barot.
For the Respondent: Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP.
Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires 'sufficient cause'; blaming an advocate's negligence or citing the merits of the case/social status of the litigant does not constitute sufficient cause for inordinate delays.
Headnote:The applicant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the restoration of two criminal miscellaneous applications dismissed for default, citing delays of 283 and 289 days. The applicant contended that the delay occurred because the advocate was on summer vacation and failed to inform the applicant, and further argued that the applicant is an agriculturist with a strong case on merits. The court found these reasons insufficient to condone the inordinate delay. The primary issue was whether the negligence of an advocate or the social and financial status of the litigant constitutes 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay. The court reasoned that a litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of their own rights and cannot shift the entire blame onto their advocate. It further held that the merits of the case and the personal circumstances of the applicant are not valid grounds for condoning delay when no convincing reason for the lapse of time is established. Consequently, both the applications stands dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi waives service of rules on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. Both the present applications seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’) with similar pleadings. Hence, both the applications are decided by a common order. The prayer is to condone the delay of 283 days caused in filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10789 of 2026 for restoration of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.23591 of 2019 filed for offences punishable under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116(1) (b) of the prohibition act and under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), registered before Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (rural) dated 27.02.2019 and to condone the delay of 289 days caused in filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.10796 of 2026 for restoration of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.23599 of 2019 filed for offences punishable under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116(1)(B) of the prohibition act registered before Karjan Police Station, Vadodara (rural) dated 16.08.2019.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. In para 2 and 3 of the petition, the applicant averred the following reasons to be treated as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It reads as under:
“2. It is further say and submits that the criminal Misc. application was dismissed for default on the ground of none/want of proceedings and the said matter is dismissed for default vide order dated 30.04.2025. It is further say and submits that to restore the main matter at its original stage the petitioner preferred criminal miscellaneous application no. 1 of 2025 wherein there is a delay of days in filling the Criminal misc. application in CR.MA No. 23591 of 2019. The delay occurred in filling the criminal Misc. application mainly on reason that advocate and present applicant was not in touch and soon after the order is passed applicant advocate was out of station on summer vacation and forgot to informed the applicant and recently when applicant contacted the advocate come to the knowledge to applicant immediately preferred this application therefore in the interest of justice the delay occurred in preferring this criminal Misc. application may be condone.
3. It is further submitted that present applicant has good case on merits and balance of convenience also lies in his favor. If the present applicant has not given an opportunity of hearing of his case on merits, then he will be suffered a great amount of loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money, as applicant is doing Agriculture activity in small village. Therefore, the present applicant prays the Hon'ble court to condone the delay which was caused in preferring the present criminal Misc. application in the interest of justice. It is further say and submitted that the ground taken in the criminal misc. for restoration may kindly treat as part and parcel of this delay condonation application.”
3.1 In the first reason, it is stated that the applicant advocate was out of station on summer vacation and forgot to inform the applicant and in second reason, it was mentioned that the applicant has good case and the applicant is doing agricultural activity in a small village. All these reasons are taken by the applicant to condone the delay of 283 days or 289 days in the aforesaid application.
4. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Rajneesh Kumar and Anr. vs. Ved Prakash, S.L.P. (CIVIL) NOS.935-936 OF 2021, criticized the approach of the litigant to put the blame upon the advocate to claim a reason for condonation of delay. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10, 11, and 12 reads as under:
“10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawy
