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.
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
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
