The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay cannot be condoned without a reasonable or plausible explanation, and the court must be satisfied with the reason for the delay.

1. Shri H.S. Chitaley, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states on instructions that respondent No.2 has filed a pursis before the Appellate Court stating that she does not desire to contest the proceedings. Statement accepted. In view of aforesaid statement presence of respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

2. Rule. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. By the present writ petition the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 11.09.2014 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.328/2012 whereby the delay in filing restoration application has been condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

4. Brief facts are that the petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 11.04.1991. Said suit came to be decreed on 10.10.1994. The respondents had filed First Appeal No.101/1995, which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge on 02.05.2009. This adjudication was made subject-matter of challenge before the Supreme Court and on 30.07.2010, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and after setting aside the judgment of learned Single Judge remanded the proceedings for fresh disposal.

5. After this order came to be passed, First Appeal No.101/1995 was dismissed in default on 13.06.2011. An application for restoration of this appeal was filed on 06.07.2011 and by order dated 14.10.2011 said application came to be allowed. Accordingly, the First Appeal was restored. On 23.11.2011 the appeal was again dismissed in default due to absence of the appellants and their counsel. On 15.02.2012 an application seeking condonation of delay in filing restoration application was moved by the respondents. The proceedings came to be transferred to the District Court due to enhancement of its pecuniary jurisdiction. By the impugned order this application has been allowed by the learned District Judge by condoning the delay subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the present petitioner.

6. Shri H.S. Chitaley, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court erred in condoning the delay in filing the application for restoration. He submitted that the respondents had been negligent throughout the proceedings and no reason whatsoever was assigned by them for having the delay condoned. He referred to the earlier application for restoration dated 06.07.2011 and submitted that the reasons mentioned in that application had been repeated in the subsequent application dated 15.02.2012. He further submitted that after the appeal was restored on 14.10.2011, the respondents were expected to be diligent in prosecuting the appeal. The reason as assigned that Vaklatnama was not available with the counsel indicates callous approach of the respondents. He then submitted that the respondents were merely interested in delaying the proceedings with a view to deprive the petitioner of the fruits of the decree passed. He submitted that execution proceedings had already been filed in which the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.11 lakhs and the sale deed came to be executed in his favour on the basis of decree as passed. He also submitted that in one hand the respondents were delaying the proceedings and on the other hand they were going ahead with some construction on the suit property. He, therefore, submitted that in absence of any explanation whatsoever the delay could not have been condoned merely by observing that the proceedings were required to be adjudicated on its own merits. He placed reliance on the following decisions.

[i] AIR 1998 SC 2276 P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another.

[ii] 2008(6) BCR 513 Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. v. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project anr.

[iii] AIR 2010 SC 3043 Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors.

[iv] 2010(5) Mh.L.J. 262 Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another.

[v] AIR 2012 1629 Maniben Devraj Shah