RAVABHAI VIRABHAI KHER vs Government of Gujarat — 395/2025

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJPT130014032025

Filing Number

395/2025

Filing Date

30-Dec-2025

Registration No

395/2025

Registration Date

30-Dec-2025

Court

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - RADHANPUR

Judge

2-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0024

Police Station

SHANKHESHWAR POLICE STATION - PATAN DISTRICT

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAVABHAI VIRABHAI KHER

    Adv. B P THAKKAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

  2. 2.VIHABHAI BHEMABHAI RABARI ETC .6

    Adv. B K PANCHAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The court allowed the applicant's delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning a 174-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application. The court found that revision applications are a statutory right and that the applicant's circumstances (lack of legal knowledge, paralysis, and no private advocate) justified the delay, especially since the State and other opponents raised no objection to condonation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 24-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Addl. District Judge

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Addl. District Judge

  6. 31-Jan-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Addl. District Judge

  7. 15-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 30-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 395/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the applicant's delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning a 174-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision Application. The court found that revision applications are a statutory right and that the applicant's circumstances (lack of legal knowledge, paralysis, and no private advocate) justified the delay, especially since the State and other opponents raised no objection to condonation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case