( 1 ) RULE. Learned counsel Mrs. Sangeeta pahwa waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. This petition has been preferred against the order dated 14th March, 2007 below exh-15 in Civil Misc. Application No. 179 of 2006 passed by Learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby delay condonation application preferred by the present petitioners (original plaintiffs) of special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1996 (old no. 311 of 1992) was not allowed.

( 2 ) IT appears from the facts of the case that originally the Suit was instituted at ahmedabad, subsequently, the same was transferred to Gandhinagar and the same was dismissed for default because of the absenteeism of the lawyer and, therefore, restoration application was preferred along with delay condonation application by the present petitioners (original plaintiffs), as a result, there was a delay of 4 years and 140 days in preferring restoration application. As the same has been dismissed by the trial Court, the petitioners (original plaintiffs) have preferred this petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners (original plaintiffs) have submitted that plaintiffs have instituted two Suits against the present respondents (original defendants ). There were two agreements to sell of the properties bearing Survey Nos. 93 and 96/6, situated at Village Nabhoi, district and Sub-District Gandhinagar. Thus, two Suits were instituted bearing special Civil Nos. 310 and 311 of 1992 for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell. Both agreements to sell were of the same date.

( 4 ) LEARNED Senior counsel Mr. B. J. Shelat on behalf of the petitioners submitted that initially, Suits were heard together by ahmedabad (Rural)Court, same lawyer was engaged by the petitioners (original plaintiffs) at Ahmedabad so that both Suits were conducted together. As the original plaintiffs and original defendants were same but survey number of the lands are different, two Suits were instituted on 13th october, 1992. They were continued in ahmedabad Court upto June, 1996. Thereafter, both the Suits were transferred to Gandhinagar Court as new Gandhinagar district was formed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no Notices were ever received by the petitioners (original plaintiffs ). Again in Gandhinagar Court, another lawyer was engaged for both the suits. Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 1992 was given new Suit being Special Civil Suit no. 208 of 1995 and Special Civil Suit no. 311 of 1992 was given a new Suit being special Civil Suit No. 104 of 1996. Special civil Suit No. 208 of 1995 and Special Civil suit No. 104 of 1996 were between the same parties. For both the Suits, a lawyer was engaged at Gandhinagar Court and always lawyer was informing to the original plaintiffs that Court has taken a matter on hand bearing Suit No. 208 of 1995. As and when Suit No. 104 of 1996 will come on board for evidence, he will inform the petitioners (original plaintiffs ). Ultimately suit No. 208 of 1995 was partly allowed and in respect of specific performance, compensation was given. Against the said judgment, First Appeal was preferred by the present petitioners bearing First Appeal no. 1319 of 2006, which has been admitted on 24th November,2006. There is no reason for the present petitioners to attend one suit and not to attend another suit. Initially, special Civil Suit Nos. 310 and 311 of 1992 were going on simultaneously in ahmedabad Court. In Gandhinagar Court, one Suit is given Suit No. 208 of 1995 and another Suit is given Suit No. 104 of 1996. At Ahmedabad Court, one lawyer was engaged for both the Suits. The same was the position at Gandhinagar Court. The Suit no. 208 of 1995 was conducted by him and the matter was over.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a mistake on the part of the lawyer of the present petitioners, as, on his docket, he has written new Suit number as 108 of 1996 but in fact, new Suit number