[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
