DODIYA BALVANTBHAI BHAGVANBHAI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - V G MANDALIYA — 281/2025
Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th May 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBN220006492025
Filing Number
281/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
281/2025
Registration Date
18-11-2025
Court
ADDL COURT-TALAJA
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
11th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
34
Police Station
TALAJA POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DODIYA BALVANTBHAI BHAGVANBHAI
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - V G MANDALIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-05-2026 | ORDER |
| 07-05-2026 | ORDER |
| 06-05-2026 | ORDER |
| 04-05-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 281/2025 Dodiya Balvantbhai Bhagvanbhai v. Government of Gujarat The court rejected the petitioner's plea seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against trial court orders. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide adequate reasons for the 8.5-year delay in approaching the appellate authority, had made multiple ineffective attempts before the trial court without persistence, and lacked legal representation or financial justification for the delay. The court held that while principles of liberal condonation exist, they require "sufficient cause"—which was absent here—and dismissed the petition as the petitioner could not demonstrate grounds warranting exception to procedural timelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 281/2025 Dodiya Balvantbhai Bhagvanbhai v. Government of Gujarat The court rejected the petitioner's plea seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against trial court orders. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide adequate reasons for the 8.5-year delay in approaching the appellate authority, had made multiple ineffective attempts before the trial court without persistence, and lacked legal representation or financial justification for the delay. The court held that while principles of liberal condonation exist, they require "sufficient cause"—which was absent here—and dismissed the petition as the petitioner could not demonstrate grounds warranting exception to procedural timelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts