JUDGMENT :

Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.

1. Rule.

2. Though served, the respondent-original plaintiff has put in no appearance, leaving no option for the Court but to proceed with the matter.

3. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner - State against an order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Gandhidham - Kachchh (herein after referred to as "the District Judge") in Misc. Civil Application No. 17 of 2015, whereby, the learned District Judge was pleased to reject the said application for condonation of delay of 59 days caused in preferring the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2014, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham - Kachchh, partly allowing the said suit, directing the petitioner herein to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.1,64,736/- towards subsidy within 60 days. The petitioner herein was also restrained from recovering an amount of Rs.1,03,704/- from the respondent - plaintiff.

4. Heard, learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the petitioner - State. She submitted that the learned District Judge has committed a grave error in rejecting the delay condonation application in filing the appeal inasmuch as the delay is of only 59 days, which in no way, can be termed as inordinate one. It is submitted that the petitioner - applicant is the State authority and has to follow requisite procedures and to avail the approvals from the concerned department/s and in the process, such delay has been occurred, however, the learned Judge has failed to appreciate such an important aspect of the matter and thereby, erred in rejecting the delay condonation application. Accordingly, making such submissions, the learned AGP has requested to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal. She has further prayed to set aside the execution proceedings being Regular Civil Execution No. 69 of 2018, wherein, the seizer order dated 01.05.2019 has been passed by the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Gandhidham - Kachchh.

5. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the averments made in the petition so also considering the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Addition District Judge, Kachchh, it appears that the suit filed by the respondent herein came to be partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.12.2014 and in preferring the appeal thereagainst, there was a delay of 59 days, for the which, the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 17 of 2015 which came to be rejected by the aforesaid order dated 16.07.2018. Further, in an execution petition filed by the respondent, the learned Court below, issued the seizer order dated 01.05.2019 and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5.1 So far as the delay is concerned (which is of only 59 days), as per the catena of decisions of the Apex Court, every matter is required to be decided on merits rather than mere technicalities. The prime purpose for which Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted was to enable the Courts to do substantial justice and that is the prime reason as to why very elastic expression and sufficient cause is employed therein so as to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is trite that in a delay application, sufficient cause is the paramount consideration and if sufficient cause is shown, the Court should generally condone the delay. However, if the sufficient cause is imbibed with the laxity on the part of the delayer despite due knowledge, then Court should restrain itself from encouraging such practice and condone the delay.

5.2 The Apex Court, in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Subrata Borah Chowlek and Ors. (12.11.2010 - SC) : MANU/SC/1252/2010 has observed as under:

"7. Having heard the Learned Counsel, we are of the opinion that in the instant case a sufficient cause had been made out for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and therefore, the High Court erred in declining to condone