R/CR.MA/16973/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 16973 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 32479 of 2025 ============================================ MEHULBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ============================================ Appearance: RC JANI & ASSOCIATE(6436) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 22/08/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 2. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 287 days caused in filing Restoration Application. 3. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant that the applicants could not file the restoration application in time because the applicant was under impression that the main matter was under office objections, however, on 04.08.2025 when the Investigating Officer approached the applicants in connection with the impugned FIR the applicants came to know that the quashing petition was dismissed for non removal of office objections. It is submitted that if the delay is not condoned, which amounts to dismiss the matter at the threshold, the applicants shall have to suffer a lot and therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the restoration application. Page 1 of 2 R/CR.MA/16973/2025 ORDER DATED: 22/08/2025 5. The learned APP has stated that as and when the main matter is listed the applicant has to remain present for proceedings. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has mentioned sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The primary function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss the matter at threshold and there is no presumption that the delay caused by the applicant is deliberate. In view thereof, the words ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bona fide and genuine. There is no smack of mala fide or dilatory tactics on the part of the applicant. 7. In view of the above, the delay of 287 days as explained in memo of the application is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. 8. Registry is directed to list the restoration application. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/08/2025 14:52:47