Findings of the court - Petitioners in their application for condonation of delay did not change their conduct and preferred multiple adjournment applications with a clear intention of not proceeding with matter diligently and keep matter pending by applying delaying tactics.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rajendra D. Jadhav waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5.

2. By way of present petition, petitioners have requested for following reliefs:

(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;

(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quashed and set aside the order dated 20.04.2019 passed by the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam in Civil Misc. Application No.13 of 2014 in Restoration application in Special Civil Suit No.553 of 2008 and Heard the Case of the Petitioners on Merits;

(c) Be pleased to grant any other relief/s as may deem fit proper, in the interest of justice.

3. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under :

That petitioners are the original plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No.553 of 2008, which is filed for the cancelation of sale deed and specific performance of the agreement. As per the averments, the respondent No.1 had executed one registered agreement to sell the land of Survey No.303 situated at Rudatal Village for Rs.47,008/- dated 7.7.1995 without possession. As per condition, respondent Nos.1 and 4 were to clear the title and execute the sale deed in the favour of petitioners on or before 15.11.1995. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to clear the title of the land, and therefore, on 10.5.1996, possession of land was given against the full amount of Rs.1,95,000/- and additional supplementary agreement was executed containing the fact that sale deed would executed on the demand of the petitioners. Even though respondent Nos. 1 and 4 had executed sale deed in favour of opponent no.5 in the year 2004 without informing the plaintiff. In April 2007, plaintiff had called the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to execute the sale deed as per agreement, at that time, plaintiff got the said information and filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed being Special Civil Suit No.553 of 2008. On 13.05.2014, the advocate of the petitioners given an application for adjournment and matter was posted on 04.07.2014. On 04.07.2014, clerk of the previous advocate of the petitioners had given one application for adjournment for medical treatment of teeth of previous advocate and same was considered by the learned Court-below and matter was adjourned to 11.07.2014. Said adjournment date was not informed to the advocate on record namely Jakirbhai Panseriya, and therefore, petitioners having no knowledge regarding the date of hearing of next date fixed on 11.07.2014. In absence of the petitioners suit was dismissed for default on 23.07.2017. However, said information was not available with the advocate of the petitioners and the Court had passed an order of dismissal of the suit for default. One compliant dated 28.08.2014 was filed before the police against the respondent Maneklal Jivabhai and second police complaint was filed against respondent No.2 Kanjibhai on 10.09.2014. Advocate appearing in the suit had no information, as he was not aware of the dismissal of the suit. On 01.10.2014, the petitioners had approached the another advocate Mr. R.P Parikh for another matter, at that time, advocate on record Mr. Jakirbhai Panseriya was found in the Court complex, at that time, petitioners had inquired regarding pendency of the suit. Advocate on record Mr. Jakirbhai had inquired and got the information regarding dismissal order of the suit on 01.10.2014. After receiving such information, petitioners had given application for certified copy and same was received on 09.10.2014. There was delay of 44 days occurred in filing the restoration application before the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam, and therefore, condonation of delay being Civil Misc. Application No.13 of 2014 was filed. Learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Viramgam rejected the condonation of delay application filed for restoring Special Civil Suit No.553 of 2008 mainly on the ground that petitioners were trying to delay the suit as issues were frame