JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner – original plaintiff praying for to quash and set aside the order dated 17.01.2017, passed by the learned 18th (Ad-hoc) Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below exh. 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 449 of 2015, whereby, the said suit came to be dismissed for default and the order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the learned 19th (Ad-hoc) Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below exh. 9 in Civil Misc. Application No. 87 of 2017, whereby, the said application for restoration of the aforesaid special civil suit came to be rejected.

2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. P. R. Thakkar for the respondents waives service. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was heard finally.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. M. B. Gohil for the petitioner – original plaintiff and learned advocate Mr. P.R. Thakkar for the respondents - original defendants.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner – plaintiff submitted that the petitioner herein had filed a civil suit being Special Civil Suit No. 449 of 2015 for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents herein – original defendants. In the said suit, Issues have already been framed and the trial was to commence. However, due to serious problem in right knee and long treatment therefor, the petitioner could not remain present on the dates so fixed before the trial Court, due to which, the suit came to be dismissed for default and restoration application therein, also came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that due to the aforesaid problem, which the petitioner is suffering from since 2010, the petitioner could not remain present before the learned trial Court nor could instruct the learned advocate representing his case before the trial Court. It is reiterated that due to the aforesaid medical problem only, the petitioner could not remain present, other wise, the petitioner has a good prime facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Accordingly, it is urged that present writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, has fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the reasonable cost that may be imposed by the Court.

3.2 As against this, learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the respondent – original defendants, while heavily opposing the present writ petition, submitted that no such stand of medical inability was taken by the petitioner before the trial Court concerned. It is submitted that, time and again, adjournments were sought for by the petitioner before the trial Court concerned and at no point of time, illness was mentioned even when the suit was dismissed for default or at the time of rejection of the restoration application. It is submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead the evidence, however, the petitioner failed and accordingly, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for default. Accordingly, it is urged that present writ petition being devoid of any merits, may not be entertained.

4. In rejoinder, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had already taken a ground of personal difficulty, and personal difficulty includes health issues as well as the medical treatment.

5. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case so also considering the papers available on record, the issue involved in the case appears to be in a very narrow compass, with regard to dismissing the suit for default and rejection of restoration application therein. The case of the petitioner was that due to illness, to be precise, problem in right knee, the petitioner could not remain present before the trial Cou