Gujarat High Court
Krushna Prerak Dave vs Prerak Nimish Dave on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1995 of
2024
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10182 of 2024
================================================================
KRUSHNA PRERAK DAVE
Versus
PRERAK NIMISH DAVE
================================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHARMENDU PANDYA(2527) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 28/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 38 days in days in preferring the Miscellaneous Civil Application for review in Special Civil Application No.718 of 2024.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Dharmendu Pandya waives service of Notice of Rule for the respondent No.1.
3. Heard party-in-person-Krushna Prerak Dave and learned advocate Mr. Dharmendu Pandya for the respondent.
4. The party-in-person contended that Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by this Court on 16.01.2024 Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined by an ex parte order. The said order was assailed before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2024, which came to be rejected by a cryptic and non-speaking order on 20.02.2024. It is further submitted that the party-in-person was legally advised that instead of approaching the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition, the remedy is available to file Miscellaneous Civil Application for review, direction and clarification and therefore, Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed with an application for condonation of delay. It is further submitted that the party-in- person was pursuing the remedy available under the law which has resulted into delay in filing a review application. It is further contended that there is a legal bar for filing a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the party- in-person has thought it fit to exhaust the remedy by filing the Miscellaneous Civil Application before this Court. The period of delay is only 38 days and considering the length of delay, a justice oriented view be adopted and delay be condoned in the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined interest of justice. Except above, no other submissions are made by the party-in-person.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the opponent has objected and raised a contention that the application is devoid of merits as there are no sufficient grounds canvassed by party-in-person for the condonation of delay. It is contended that the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by this Court is not an ex-parte order. After hearing the party-in-person, the order of dismissal of Special Civil Application No.718 of 2024 is passed. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the order, had rejected the Letters Patent Appeal on 20.02.2024. The party-in- person thereafter preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application (for review) No.715 of 2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2024. The said Miscellaneous Civil Application came to be rejected by Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court on 01.05.2024. It is further contended that it is not the case of the party-in-person that she was litigating bonafidely before a Court Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined having no jurisdiction. The party-in-person made an attempt to challenge the order dated 16.01.2024 by preferring the Letters Patent Appeal and when the Letters Patent Appeal came to be rejected on 20.02.2024, the application for the review of the order dated 16.01.2024 came to be filed which also came to be rejected. There is no merit in the application for condonation of delay as well as no merit in the Miscellaneous Civil Application and therefore, the present application deserves to be dismissed. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the opponent.
6. I have heard party-in-person at length and learned advocate for opponent. Perused the papers. The prayers sought for, in the Special Civil Application No.718 of 2024 was for staying the proceedings of Family Suit No.68 of 2023 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Gandhinagar and to call for Record and Proceedings of the Family Suit. It was also prayed that a direction may be issued for returning of Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined the plaint to the respondent and to present it the same before the appropriate Court. The basic challenge by the applicant in the said Special Civil Application was that the learned Family Court, Gandhinagar had no jurisdiction to try and decide the family suit. The applicant herein, in the present application, has stated that the order dated 16.01.2024 is an ex parte order. The party-in-person has made a factually incorrect statement on oath. Before passing the order dated 16.01.2024, the party-in-person was heard at length and thereafter, Special Civil Application came to be rejected. The party-in-person has made a very baseless allegation in the application that Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2024, by a cryptic and non-speaking order, rejected the Letters Patent Appeal on 20.02.2024. Learned advocate for the opponent has placed on record the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2024 in Special Civil Application No.718 of 2024 and also placed on record an order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Miscellaneous Civil Application (for review) No.715 of 2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.182 of 2024 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rejecting the review of the judgment and order dated 20.02.2024. Both the orders are taken on record. The conduct of the party-in-person is evident from the record. It appears that the party-in-person is in the habit of challenging the orders passed by Courts by filing frivolous review applications. When the party-in-person has failed in challenging the order dated 16.01.2024 in the Letters Patent Appeal, again, a review application came to be filed which also came to be rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The present application is for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing Miscellaneous Civil Application for the review of the order dated 16.01.2024. This Court fully agrees with the settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a justice orientated view is required to be adopted. While adopting a lenient view, this Court cannot ignore the conduct of a litigant who is seeking a relief of condonation Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined of delay. For making out a strong case for condoning delay, the first and foremost precondition has to be satisfied by the party- in-person that the reasons assigned in the application are sufficient reasons and the party-in-person was prevented by the circumstances beyond her control. The party-in-person, undisputedly, was not engaged in a proceedings before a Court having no jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, party-in-person was availing her remedy available under Section 15 of the Letters Patent Act and after failing in the appeal, the present application has been filed. The conduct of party-in-person as emerges on record indicates that the petitioner is in the habit of filing Miscellaneous Civil Application (for review) one after the other. The conduct of the party-in-person, in my view, is not bonafide and this Court is of the view that a party-in-person wants to drag the opponent into baseless litigation. This is a clear case of abuse of the process of law as no case is made out for condoning delay.
7. Considering the conduct of the party-in-person and Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/1995/2024 ORDER DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined considering the facts of the case, the present application is dismissed with a cost of Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, Rule stands discharged. The party-in-person shall deposit the cost amount before the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 15 days from the receipt of of this order.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 02 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Dec 02 21:51:02 IST 2025