Gujarat High Court
Jagrutiben Janakbhai Mehta vs Mukeshbhai Muljibhai Patel on 3 July, 2013
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
JAGRUTIBEN JANAKBHAI MEHTA....Applicant(s)V/SMUKESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL (EXPIRED ON 19.02.11) R/CR.MA/5275/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5275 of 2013 In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5273 of 2013 ================================================================ JAGRUTIBEN JANAKBHAI MEHTA....Applicant(s) Versus MUKESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL (EXPIRED ON 19.02.11) & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR AMIT M. BAROT FOR MR JIGAR G GADHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MS JAYSWAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS VIDITA D JAYSWAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HIMANSHU K PATEL,ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent No. 3 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 03/07/2013 ORAL ORDER
1. This application has been preferred by the applicant-original complainant under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, with a prayer to condone the delay of 1104 days that has occurred in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Criminal Case No.346/2002.
Heard Mr.Amit M. Barot, learned advocate for Mr.Jigar G. Gadhavi, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms.Vidita D. Jayswal, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr.Himanshu K. Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3. As respondent No.1 has expired, notice of Rule was not issued to the said respondent.
It is submitted by Mr.Amit Barot, learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was bonafidely pursuing his remedy in a wrong Forum. The appeal was preferred before the wrong Forum due to some ill-advise. The applicant is not conversant with the law, therefore, it did not come to his knowledge that he was pursuing his remedy in a wrong Forum. Learned advocate for the applicant has invoked the provisions of Section-14 of the Limitation Act and has submitted that the delay be condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the application, it transpires that the applicant has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in paragraphs-3 to 5 thereof and as the applicant was bonafidely pursuing his remedy in a wrong Forum and according to the provisions of Section-14 of the Limitation Act, the delay of 1104 days that has occurred in preferring the Criminal Appeal deserves to be condoned. The record does not reveal that there has been any carelessness or negligence on the part of the applicant in prosecuting the lis.
The prayers made in the application, therefore, deserve to be granted.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay of 1104 days that has occurred in filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the learned 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Criminal Case No.346/2002, is condoned. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 3 of 3