Gujarat High Court
Ghanshyambhai Ratibhai Barvaliya vs Khimajibhai Damjibhai Navadiya on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5184/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5184 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27629 of 2025
================================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI RATIBHAI BARVALIYA
Versus
KHIMAJIBHAI DAMJIBHAI NAVADIYA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTH B THUMMAR(13122) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 871 days which has occured in preferring the First Appeal.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Parth B. Thummar for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Manan A. Shah for the respondent.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant contended that the applicant has assailed the judgment dated 31.12.2022 and decree dated 03.01.2023. Initially, the applicant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.24 of 2023 before learned District Court at Surat.
Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:19:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5184/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
However, for want of valuation, appeal came to be returned back to the applicant to be filed before this Court. It is further contended that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time consumed in litigating before the Forum having no jurisdiction is required to be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. It is further contended that the if the period consumed before learned District Court is excluded, appeal is well within the period of limitation. It is further contended that there is no intentional delay on the part of the applicant and the reasons assisgned in the application are sufficient.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that applicant deliberately preferred the appeal before learned District Court though applicant was aware about the fact that the valuation of the suit is above Rs.50 lakhs. It is further contended that the applicant has not come with clean hands and therefore, delay may not be condoned.
5. Having considered the submissions canvassed by learned Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:19:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/5184/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined advocates for the parties and the averments made in the application, it appears that the applicant was purusing a remedy before learned District Court at Surat who had no jurisdiction to try and and decide the appeal as valuation of the suit property was above Rs.50 lakhs. Considering Section 14 of the Limitation Act which empowers exclusion of period of limitation where a litigant is prosecuting before a Court having no jurisdiction. Considering the aforesaid fact, sufficient cause is made out by the applicant and the delay is condoned on a condition to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- before Gujarat High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
6. Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Mon Nov 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 03 22:19:23 IST 2025