ORDER : S.G SHAH, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. V.M Pathan for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent State. 2. It seems that revision application itself is misconceived inasmuch as though applicants have been acquitted by the trial Court, it seems that they have preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court after 16 months and 16 days with an application to condone the delay. Such application was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 17.12.2015 by the 6th (Adhoc) Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad on the ground that said appeal is not maintainable before the Sessions Court and when appeal is not maintainable, there is no question of condoning the delay, which is also inordinate i.e. 16 months and 16 days. It seems that applicants want to challenge such order of refusing to condone the delay in filing Criminal Appeal in Misc. Application No. 302 of 2015 and therefore, the Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 2016 is preferred before this Court. However, again there is a delay of 37 days. Such revision application was dismissed for default by an order dated 28.4.2016 When the applicant has filed present application to restore such revision application, which is also otherwise not maintainable, because ultimately, applicants are trying to challenge their order of acquittal contending that they should be acquitted as innocent persons rather than acquitting them extending the benefit of doubt. In any case, even after dismissal of revision application for want of prosecution, when there is delay of 37 days in filing such restoration application, what is required to be verified is that whether there is sufficient cause for not filing such application in time. 3. The perusal of record shows that the only ground pleaded by the petitioner is mistake of the advocate clerk for dismissal of their revision application for want of prosecution. I do not find such ground as sufficient ground to condone the delay in absence of further and proper details including affidavit, confirming that which clerk is at fault and in that case why applicant or his advocate has not taken steps against such clerk. It cannot be ignored that law of limitation is certainly a part of our jurisprudence and it cannot be ignored in all the matters when there are no sufficient cause even if applicants are negligent and only because they have preferred an application for condonation of delay. It cannot be ignored that law of limitation is certainly a part of our jurisprudence and it cannot be ignored in all the matters when there are no sufficient cause even if applicants are negligent and only because they have preferred an application for condonation of delay. Therefore, there is no substance in the application, hence, the same is dismissed.