The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation for filing a restoration application, the need for a sufficient cause to condone the delay, and the significance of natural justice in such matters.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule.

2. These petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the petitioner against a common judgment and order dated 18.04.2018 passed vide Exh.22 in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 172 and 178 of 2016 by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. By the said applications, the respondent No. 1 herein had prayed for to restore Misc. Civil Application Nos. 79 and 78 of 2004, which were dismissed for default by orders dated 12.02.2013.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. G.T. Dayani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Chinmay Gandhi for the respondent No. 1. Notice is duly served upon respondent No. 2.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned City Civil Judge is illegal, perverse and arbitrary inasmuch as the restoration applications in question were filed beyond time limit and on totally misstatement and false allegations. He submitted that only because the respondent No. 1 is a government undertaking, it does not deserve undue leverage more particularly, when there was inordinate delay and false statements.

4.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner, through arbitration process, got the award in the year 2003 and faced multiple litigation, however, still the petitioner has not availed the fruits of such litigation. He submitted that the petitioner company had successfully completed the work and got the award, however, due to such litigation, the petitioner is not receiving the legitimate dues and the amount is, now, ordered to be invested in fixed deposit by the impugned order.

4.2 Moreover, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that principle of natural justice and substantial justice, are for whom who comes with clean hands, which, in the case of the respondent No. 1 is not there. He submitted that as per settled principles of law, mala-fides, negligence, inordinate delay, insufficient grounds and unsupported statements do play important role in exercising the discretion and it may be refused, irrespective of the fact that the party is a government authority, for want of sufficient cause and/or for any other cause mentioned above. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that after dismissal, the petitioner filed the execution proceedings and the respondent No. 1 was duly served and accordingly, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 was not aware and therefore, the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the said fact, but is not taken into account.

4.3 Making such submissions, it is urged that these petitions may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

4.4 In support, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon following decisions:

(i) Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another vs. Gopi Chand Atreja, AIR 2019 SC 1423

(ii) Khodiyar Rolling Mill vs. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. 2014 (0) AIJEL-HC 231645

(iii) Subham Corporation through Proprietor Kreena Sureshbhai vs. Gujarat Siddhi Cement Ltd. 2013 (0) GLHEL-HC 230219

(iv) Prahladbhai Shivabhai Patel vs. Bhanuben Kantibhai Patel, 2014 (4) GLR 3219

(v) Patel Shankarbhai Virabhai vs. Patel Narayanbhai Ambalal, 2011 (0) GLHEL-HC 226069

(vi) Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Another, 2010 (4) GLR 3066 SC

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Chinmay Gandhi for the respondent No. 1, while supporting the impugned judgment and order, heavily resisted the petitions and submitted that no error has been committed by the learned City Civil Judge, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. It is submitted that learned advocate representing the resp