ORDER :

K.M. Thaker, J.

Heard learned advocates for the contesting parties. At the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned advocates for the respondents, the matter is taken up for hearing and final decision and is heard finally.

2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:

"6(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.7.2011, below Exh.1 in Restoration Application 92 of 2008 passed by the 5th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & JMFC, Surat and be pleased to allow the said restoration application No.92 of 2008."

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2011 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the petitioner's application to restore the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 1994 which also was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution.

4. In order to consider the grievance made by the petitioner against the impugned order, it is appropriate and necessary to take into account certain facts, events and dates.

4.1 The petitioner is original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 1994.

4.2 In 1994, the petitioner herein preferred a suit which came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No.217 of 1994, wherein the petitioner - plaintiff prayed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property viz. Plot No.16E, admeasuring 250 square yards on Revenue Survey No.6265 paiki of village Althan, Surat.

4.3 The said suit remained pending for many years.

4.4 Ultimately, on ground of non-prosecution, the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution in November 2008, i.e. after about 14 years.

4.5 The petitioner - plaintiff has claimed that in December 2008, the petitioner - plaintiff filed application seeking restoration of suit proceedings.

4.6 The said application also remained pending for considerable time, i.e. for about three years and the proceedings had to be adjourned from time to time and ultimately after waiting for about 3 years, the learned trial Court was constrained to dismiss even the said application also on ground of non-prosecution vide order dated 21.7.2011.

4.7 Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred present petition.

5. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing the petitioner's application seeking restoration of the suit proceedings. He submitted that in the first instance, the learned trial Court ought not have dismissed the suit for non-prosecution and in any case, when the petitioner preferred application seeking restoration of the proceedings, the said application ought to have been allowed and should not have been rejected. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has committed serious error in rejecting the petitioner's application. So as to support his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decisions in the cases of Lajwanti v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 345; Rashtriya Mazdoor Union v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., reported in 2005 (2) GLH 612; Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1159; and Shyamal Ghosh v. Anupama Ghosh, reported in 2010 (0) GLHELSC 48434.

6. The petition is opposed by Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No.1. He submitted that since the petitioner was not remaining present, the suit remained pending for almost 14 years and ultimately the Court was left with no option but to dismiss the suit for non prosecution. He also submitted that even during the hearing of the application seeking restoration of the proceedings, the petitioner applicant did not remain present and the application remained pending for almost 3 years and ultimately the Court dismissed the said application as well for non-prosecution. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by t