JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

1. This application for condonation of delay has been filed by the original defendant who seeks to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court on 08-03-2013, by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), which has been filed beyond the period of limitation.

2. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that, the non-applicant is the original plaintiff who had filed suit for specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26-10-2007, along with other ancillary reliefs. The applicant filed his written statement opposing the said suit. Thereafter, he as well as his Counsel remained absent and hence the suit proceeded ex-parte against the applicant. The trial Court decreed the suit on 08-03-2013. According to the non-applicant, he got knowledge about the aforesaid ex-parte decree on 18-12-2014. The applicant, therefore, filed an application under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, for setting aside that ex-parte decree. That application was dismissed by the trial Court on 20-03-2015. This order was challenged by the applicant by filing Appeal From Order No. 537 of 2015. That appeal was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 20-03-2017 and the proceedings were remanded to the trial Court for deciding the same afresh. The trial Court, thereafter, allowed the Notice of Motion filed by the applicant on 27-10-2017 and after condoning the delay set aside the ex-parte decree. Being aggrieved by that order, the non-applicant herein filed Civil Revision Application No. 12 of 2018. By judgment dated 27-02-2018, the said Civil Revision Application came to be allowed and the order passed by the trial Court dated 27-10-2017, came to be set aside. The order passed by this Court has been further challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that challenge is pending. Thereafter, the applicant herein has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code on 21-06-2018, along with the application for condonation of delay. The period of delay as stated is of 5 years and 75 days.

3. Shri Sanjay Jain, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the fact that the applicant was pursuing proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte decree by filing an application under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, the time spent in pursuing those proceedings ought to be taken into consideration and the delay in filing the appeal under Section 96 of the Code ought to be condoned. Placing reliance on the decision in J. Kumaradasan Nair and another vs. Iric Sohan and others, reported at (2009) 12 SCC 175, it was submitted that the principles underlying the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act of 1963'), would be applicable while considering the prayer for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. It was urged that the principles for applying provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1963, were meant for grant of relief where a person has committed some mistake and ought to be applied in a broad based manner. In view of the fact that the earlier proceedings were being bona fide pursued, that period ought to be excluded. The learned Counsel then referred to the order dated 06-05-2011 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1013 of 2009 in Stamp Number Main No. 3866 of 2009 (Suresh G. Ramnani s/o Govindram J. Ramnani vs. Mrs. Aurelia Ana da Piedade Miranda alias Araiyo Alvares and others) to urge that in somewhat similar circumstances this Court had condoned the delay in filing Second Appeal by applying the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1963. Relying upon the decision in Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Mrs. Aurelia Ana da Piedade Miranda alias Araiyo Alvares and others, reported at 2012(5) Mh. L.J. 40, it was submitted that when proceedings under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code as well as an appeal under Section 96 of the Code can be pursu