JUDGMENT :

1. The present application for restoration on condonation of delay has been filed on August 02, 2025, whereas the appeal was dismissed for default on February 07, 2020.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the averments made in restoration application to submit that there was no mala fides on the part of the appellant company at any point of time, thereby justifying a lenient approach to be taken by this Court in condoning the delay in filing the application.

3. It is contended that one Ms. Sonali Chaubey, the then Company Secretary of the appellant company who was handling the litigation on behalf of the company, had left the services of the company.

4. It is pointed out although in the restoration application, it was mentioned that the said Company Secretary had left the company in or about September, 2020,after the incorrectness of the said statement was pointed out in the affidavit in opposition by the respondent, apology has been sought in the affidavit in reply,admitting that the said date was erroneously mentioned, whereas the Company Secretary had left long after, in the month of December, 2021.

5. Be that as it may, it is submitted by learned senior counsel that during the regime of the said Company Secretary, the appeal got dismissed for default. Only much subsequently, after the erstwhile learned advocate for the appellant intimated the appellant- company that the appeal had been dismissed for default and the impugned decree had been put into execution and in connection therewith an attachment order was passed by the executing court, did the appellant learn about such dismissal for default and immediately engaged a new advocate who, upon taking information, came to know about such dismissal and the surrounding circumstances.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant cites a decision reported at 1998 (7) SCC 123[N. BalakrishnanVersus M. Krishnamurthy], in support of proposition of that length of delay is immaterial in condonation of delay, whereas acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion.

7. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the said report that if the explanation given for the delay does not smack of mala fide or does not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.

8. Learned senior counsel submits further that no advantage could have been derived by the appellant from the delay occasioned in preferring the instant application for restoration since, in the meantime, the possession of the decretal property had been handed over by the appellant in favour of the decree-holder/respondent on or about February 09, 2021.

9. It is candidly submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant had failed to comply with the condition imposed for grant of stay vide order dated August 28, 2019 by non-payment of occupation charges. However, it is insinuated that such non- compliance was due to the loss of business and stringent financial conditions under gone by the appellant-company at the relevant point of time.

10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the annexures to the application for restoration to indicate that the knowledge was derived regarding dismissal of the appeal for default only on July 01, 2025, soon after which the present application was filed.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer for restoration and condonation of delay in making the said application.

12. Learned senior counsel places reliance on the judgment reported at 2010 (8) SCC685 [Balwant Singh (Dead) Versus Jagdish Singh And Others],wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, had observed that the explanation of delay should clearly be understood in contradistinction with inordinate unexplained delay. Delay, it was held, is just one of the ingredients which have to be considered by the Court. In addition to it, the Cou