The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay and restoring suits to file, emphasizing the importance of deciding cases on merits rather than technicalities.

JUDGMENT

N.J.Jamadar, J. - The Applicant/Plaintiff has preferred this Application to condone the delay of 1503 days in filing the instant Application to set aside the order dated 1 October 2015, whereby the suit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution and also to set aside the said order and restore the suit to file for adjudication on merits.

2. The Applicant avers, it had engaged Mr. Anirudda P. Sathe, Advocate to represent it in the suit. Mr. Sathe suffered a paralytic stroke and had not been keeping good health. Mr. Sathe's colleague Ms. Lata Wadhwani, who had also filed Vakalatnama along with Mr Sathe, started her independent practice. The Applicant/Plaintiff Company came to be amalgamated with M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Ltd.

3. The Applicant avers, on account of indifferent health of Mr. Sathe and amalgamation of the Applicant Company with M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Ltd., the Applicant lost track of the suit. In the last week of August 2019, upon being enquired by an Advocate who was entrusted with certain criminal matters, the Applicant tried to ascertain the stage of the instant Suit. It transpired that the suit stood dismissed by the Court for want of prosecution by an order dated 1 October 2015. The Applicant claimed to have immediately obtained certified copies of the proceedings and instituted this Interim Application.

4. The Applicant avers, delay of 1503 days in taking out the Application for setting aside the aforesaid order is not intentional. None could appear for the Plaintiff on account of the illness of its former Advocate Mr. Sathe. Therefore, the delay be condoned and the Suit be restored to file, lest the Plaintiff who has a good case on merits would suffer an irreparable loss.

5. An Affidavit in Reply is filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.2 and 4. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 have adopted the contentions in the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of Defendant Nos.2 and 4.

6. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 contend that the Application is wholly misconceived. It is malafide and preferred with an ulterior motive to keep vexing the Defendants. There is no cause, much less, sufficient for condonation of huge delay of 1503 days.

7. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 contend that the Application is also based on patently false and untenable grounds. The cause of illness of Mr. Sathe sought to be ascribed as a reason for non-appearance, is false to the knowledge of the Plaintiff. Similarly, the amalgamation of the Plaintiff with M/s. Lallubhai Amichand Ltd., which took place in the year 2012, had no relevance whatsoever with the said non-appearance.

8. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 categorically contend that the cause of purported illness of Mr. Sathe is nothing but a malafide effort to lay the blame entirely at the door of the said Advocate. The statements to that effect are bald and vague. On the contrary, there is material to indicate that Mr. Sathe had been regularly appearing in various courts, immediately before and after the passing of the order dated 1 October 2015 as borne out by the copies of the orders which are annexed to the Affidavit in Reply. The said material completely belies the claim of the Applicant that on account of indifferent health of Mr Sathe, the latter could not appear before the Court when the suit was listed.

9. According to the Defendants, there is no explanation worth its name for the delay of almost 5 years in taking out the Application for setting aside the said order. This inaction assumes significance in the light of the fact that the Plaintiff was prosecuting a number of criminal proceedings against the Defendants. In the absence of any plausible explanation, the delay does not deserve to be condoned.

10. In the wake of the resistance putforth by the Defendants, the Plaintiff has filed an Affidavit of Mr. Sathe, its former Advocate. Since the alleged illness of Mr. Sathe was sought to be urged as a prime reason for non-appearance of the Plaintiff and the dismissal of the suit and also for condonation of delay in taking out t