The judgment emphasizes the importance of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay, diligence, and bona fide conduct in seeking restoration, and the impact of delay on the rights of the opposing party.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to dispose of two pending applications, being I.A. No.1536/2010 under Order IX, Rule 9 CPC alongwith I.A. No.1537/2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed by the plaintiff.

2. The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration, partition and possession against the defendants. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.05.2008.

3. It is submitted in the application that since the matter was being settled between the parties, therefore, on 05.12.2007 some more time was sought for compromise and the matter was renotified on 14.02.2008 for further proceedings. Later on, it was revealed

from the record that the matter was listed on 08.05.2008, but no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and the same was adjourned to 15.05.2008. On 15.05.2008, again there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. It is alleged by the plaintiff in the application that in the second week of January, 2010, when the plaintiff’s attorney visited the office of the Senior Advocate and enquired about his case, then only it was revealed that since the file had been taken by the representative of the plaintiff (power of attorney holder), and as there had been no meeting between the plaintiff and any of his counsels, it was presumed at the office of the counsels for the plaintiff that the new counsel has been engaged in the matter. However, the plaintiff’s attorney informed the counsel that the file had been lost by the employee of the plaintiff’s attorney.

5. On 16.01.2010, certified copies of the entire file were applied and from that it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the suit has been dismissed on 15.05.2008. Hence, the present applications have been filed. It is stated in the application that the plaintiff acted bonafidely and the matter was not attended unintentionally on 08.05.2008 and 15.05.2008. Thus, the present application for restoration of suit be allowed as the plaintiff has been able to show sufficient cause for non-appearance.

6. In I.A. No.1537/2010, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing of application for restoration of the suit, it is stated that since, plaintiff is the resident of USA, he was unable to visit India frequently and therefore, was not aware of the dismissal of the suit uptil 22.01.2010 and it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, only when the certified copies of the entire file were taken. It was submitted that the plaintiff has acted bonafidely and in good faith and the delay of one year, seven months and 20 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit be condoned.

7. Replies to the said applications were filed by the defendants No.1 and 6. The prayers made in the applications have been strongly opposed by the said defendants. In the reply, the defendant No.1 has also given details of few facts, which according to them, are necessary in order to decide the applications. According to them, it is just a futile exercise to consider the applications filed by the plaintiff as the plaintiff has already lost any interest in the matter. The present applications have just been filed by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendants No.1 and 6 who are the subsequent purchasers of the suit property. As the plaintiff has failed to show any valid “sufficient cause” for not making the applications within the period of limitation, thus, both applications are liable to be dismissed.

8. The facts mentioned in the reply are referred as under:

a) Plot No.S-473, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi, was purchased by Smt. Shakuntala Rani Anand on installments basis from DLF Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The plot was measuring 208 sq. yds.

b) Mrs Anand and Mr Hans Raj Anand had come to Delhi from Canada to arrange/attend the marriage of Dr. Vijay Kumar Anand, which took place on 10.08.1982. The defendant No.2 had