The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the emphasis on advancing substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule.

2. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners – original plaintiffs against an order dated 12.10.2017 passed in Delay Application No. 142/2017 by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. By the said application, the petitioners – plaintiffs had prayed for to condone the delay of 2 years and 29 days caused in preferring the restoration application to restore the suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 1093 of 1998, which came to be dismissed for default for want of prosecution by an order dated 12.03.2015.

3. Facts in nutshell of the case on hand are that the petitioners – plaintiffs filed the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 1093 of 1998 for declaration and permanent injunction qua the suit property against the respondents – defendants. The said suit came to be dismissed for default, for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.03.2015. Since there was delay of about 2 years and 29 days in preferring an application for restoration of the suit, the petitioners – plaintiffs filed an application for condonation of delay, which came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 12.10.2017 and hence, this petition.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar for the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate Shri D. C. Dave with learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Mehta for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

4.1 The crux of the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the petitioners – plaintiffs were genuinely pursuing the suit till 2014, however, due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the learned advocate representing the petitioners – plaintiffs before the learned Court below, neither the learned advocate nor the petitioners – plaintiffs could remain present on the appointed dates, because of which, the suit came to be dismissed for default for want of prosecution. It is the case of the petitioners – plaintiffs that they did not know about such dismissal of the suit uptil the said fact came to the fore during their pursuit to revenue proceedings. The learned advocate for the petitioners – plaintiffs submitted that immediately on coming to know about the same, they acted upon and filed necessary applications. It is submitted that since the petitioners – plaintiffs came to know about the dismissal of the suit only on 07.03.2017, they could not file the restoration application in time, however, the learned Court below has failed to consider such an important aspect of the matter and thereby, has materially erred in rejecting the application for restoration, taking hyper technical view of the matter. He submitted that otherwise the petitioners have a good case on merits. Accordingly, it is urged that this petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and to condone the delay in filing the restoration application.

4.2 In support, the learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon following decisions:

(i) M. S. University, Through Registrar v. Arvindbhai Purshottam Shah Kelkar’s Wada, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 6618;

(ii) Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 76;

(iii) Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 2 of 2020 in First Appeal No. 34 of 1987 dated 09.02.2022;

(iv) Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another, (1981) 2 SCC 788;

(v) Hiren Singha Roy v. Howrah Improvement Trust and Others, (2000) 9 SCC 309;

(vi) S. K. Sayyed s/o. SK. Mohammad and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2009 (6) Mh. L.J. 851;

(vii) Special Civil Application No. 7112 of 2021 dated 24.11.2021;

(viii) Civil Revision Application No. 154 to 157 of 2011 dated 26.07.20211;

(ix) Special Civil Application No. 527 of 2010 dated 04.01.2016;

(x) Special Civil Application No. 8405 of 2047 dated 17.08.2021.

5. Per contra, learned senior advocate for the respondents, while heavily resisting the petition, submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly passed the order, which is just and proper and accordingly, may not be interfered