Point of law: While considering the application for condonation of delay no straight jacket formula is prescribed to come to the conclusion if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct behaviour and attitude of the appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter.

ORDER :

1. By way of preferring this petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.8.2018 passed in Civil Misc. (Delay Condone) Application No. 143 of 2018 by the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 23 days caused in preferring the First Appeal / Regular Civil Appeal filed under Section 96 as well as Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned District Judge, Vadodara.

2. The brief facts leading to the present case are as under:-

2.1 The petitioners are the original plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No. 1539, which was instituted before the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. As per the contentions, the petitioners are entitled to have rights over the land in question i.e. land situated at Revenue Survey No. 48 of Mouje Tandalja, Tal-Dist. Vadodara, admeasuring 1-18 Acre- gunthas and the respondent-Trust has no right over the land in question. That, by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018, learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara dismissed the suit. That, being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred First Appeal / Regular Civil Appeal under the provisions of Section 96 as well as Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned District Judge, Vadodara. That, in the said First Appeal, there was a delay of 23 days and, therefore, an application i.e. Civil Misc. (Delay Condone) Application No. 143 of 2018 was filed by the petitioners under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay caused in preferring the First Appeal / Regular Civil Appeal. That, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 the learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and evidence on record. That, the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. That, the delay of 23 days was required to be condoned considering the facts of the case. That, the petitioners have remained vigilant for their rights and therefore also the delay was required to be condoned. That, the petitioners were under impression that considering the facts that two suits instituted by the respondent were rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and their suit would be allowed. However, later on, by making online search, the petitioners realized that their suit was dismissed. That, the ratio of decisions cited at the bar has not been properly considered while passing the impugned order. That, the learned District Court has said that there is a delay of 53 days, even in that case the delay was required to be condoned That, even otherwise the impugned orders are contrary to law and evidence on record and therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the decision rendered in case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, Vs. Ujagar Singh and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 786 and also rendered in case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107. Ultimately It was requested by the Learned advocate for the petitioners to allow this petition.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that in fact there is a delay of 53 days and not 23 days as calculated by the petitioners in their application i.e. Civil Misc. (Delay Condone) Application No. 143 of 2018 preferred under Section 5 of Limitation Act because the suit was dismissed on 22nd March, 2018 and therefore, limitation for preferring appeal would start from the next date up to 30 days. The petitioners were required to file appeal against the dismissal of the suit within one month from the date of p