Modification of Order dtd.

C/CA/1995/2024 2 8 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 5 i n R / C A / 1 9 9 5 / 2 0 2 4 ORDER DATED: 17/02/2026

0.9984291491289474 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1995 of

2024 In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION/10182/2024 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/718/2024 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 28/11/2025 in R/CA/1995/2024 ]

================================================================

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 : 17/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

Perused the note for speaking to minutes.

No case is made out to entertain the note for speaking to minutes, therefore, the present note for speaking to minutes stands rejected.

(D. M. DESAI,J)

RINKU MALI

0.9984291491289474 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

0.9984291491289474 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

0.9984291491289474 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