The Court emphasized that discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, must be exercised within reasonable bounds and informed by reason. Negligence, default, or inaction of a party may not justify the condonation of delay.

ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

1. Rule. Ms.Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate, wavies service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally.

2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated th 26.06.2012, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar (“the Trial Court”, for short), on the application at Exh.1, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.4 of 2009, preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code” for short).

3. The brief facts of the case, gathered from the memorandum of the petition and material on record are that the petitioner, a Proprietary concern, was running a Rolling Mill at Plot No.4, Survey No.50/2, Village:Khakharia of Taluka:Shihor, District: Bhavnagar. According to the petitioner, the land was sold by a Registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.2006, and the machinery was also disposed of. Hence, the business of the petitioner was no longer being carried out on the said premises. There were several disputes between the petitioner and the respondent Electricity Company regarding the payment of outstanding electricity bills, pending in various Courts of law. The respondent Electricity Company instituted Special Civil Suit No.56 of 2006, before the Trial Court, for recovery of the outstanding amount, on 01.07.2006. According to the petitioner, it never received any notice/summons from the Trial Court. Three addresses of the petitioner were mentioned in the plaint, however, the summons were allegedly served upon the office premises of the petitioner at 202, Pruthvi Complex, Kala Nala, Bhavnagar, upon the petitioner concern. It is the case of the petitioner that it is nowhere stated in the Report of the Bailiff who the socalled “responsible person” is, upon whom the summons were allegedly served, on 27.07.2006. That the signature on the summons is of one ‘Bhattbhai’, as an employee of the petitioner concern. However, there was no such person by that name in the employment of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was unaware of the suit proceedings. Ultimately, the suit came to be decreed exparte by the Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2007. Of this as well, the petitioner was unaware. According to the petitioner, in proceedings between the parties before the Electrical Inspector, Gandhinagar, a xerox copy of the decree was served upon the advocate of the petitioner. It was only at that point of time that the petitioner came to know about the same. The petitioner, immediately, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code to set aside the exparte judgment and decree. However, as there was a delay in filing the said application, the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application No.4 of 2009 for condonation of delay. This application has been rejected by the impugned order, giving rise to the filing of the present petition. 4. Mr.Harshit S. Tolia, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for condonation of delay preferred by the petitioner is illegal and perverse. The Trial Court has fallen into error in rejecting the application as it is the case of the petitioner that the summons were never served upon the petitioner Company at the residential address but were allegedly served at the office address. The person who has put his signature on the summons is unknown to the petitioner concern. It was the duty of the respondent plaintiff to establish due and proper service of the summons to the petitioner. However, this has not been done, resulting in the suit being decreed expar