[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Patelvasantkumar Revabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5610/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5610 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 33374 of 2025
==========================================================
PATELVASANTKUMAR REVABHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA S PATEL(12087) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
BHAVESH DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Desai waives
service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents.
2. This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 1176 days occurred in filing the
captioned first appeal
3. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the applicants submits that
after the passing of the judgment dated 13.05.2022, under the
wrong advice, review application came to be filed before the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, which came to be
rejected by the learned Court on 01.08.2025. Learned advocate
Mr. Patel further submits that as they had approached the wrong
forum, the delay was caused of 1176 days in filing the first appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5610/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
and therefore, it is prayed that the present application may be
allowed.
4. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Desai for the respondents has
opposed the application for condonation of delay.
5. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Srinivasa R&P Boiled
Rice Mill v. State, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1790, wherein
it is held as under.
"3. It is an accepted position that the appellant had
filed a writ petition before the High Court on February
24, 2018, which was not entertained vide the order
dated March 7, 2018 on the ground that the appellant
should approach the appellate authority. The appellant
is entitled to ask for exclusion of the said period in terms
of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Exclusion of
time is different, and cannot be equated with
condonation of delay. The period once excluded, cannot
be counted for the purpose of computing the period for
which delay can be condoned. Of course for exclusion of
time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the
conditions stipulated in section 14 have to be satisfied.
4. In the facts of the present case, we find that the
period from the date of filing of the writ petition on
February 24, 2018 and the date on which it was
dismissed as not entertained, viz., March 7, 2018, should
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5610/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
have been excluded. The writ proceedings were
maintainable, but not entertained. Bona fides of the
appellant in filing the writ petition are not challenged.
Further, immediately after the dismissal of the writ
petition, the appellant did file an appeal before the
appellate authority. On exclusion of the aforesaid period,
the appeal preferred by the appellant would be within
the condonable period. Accordingly, we direct that the
application for condonation of delay filed by the
appellant would be treated as allowed. The delay is
directed to be condoned."
5.1. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned
advocates for the respective parties and considering the
aforesaid decision, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
if the applicant has approached the wrong forum then benefit of
delay can be granted in favour of the applicant.
6. In view of above, present application is allowed. The delay
of 1176 days occurred in filing the first appeal is hereby
condoned. Rule is made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
