JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi for the Petitioner. Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the Respondent.

2. Rule.

3. By way of preferring the present Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner / Original Applicant – Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited, has challenged the order dated 17.8.2021 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Application”) by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Amreli [hereinafter referred to as “the learned Judge”], whereby the learned learned Judge has rejected the Application, seeking condonation of delay, in preferring the Appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, dated 26.9.2019 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay, whereby the Application filed by the Petitioner (Original Applicant) came to be rejected.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the impugned order runs contrary to the settled principle of law inasmuch as the Petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to meet with their case on merits and application filed for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal, which ought to have been allowed by the learned Judge keeping in view the liberal approach. It is argued that the findings are contrary to the material placed on record and therefore, the findings suffer from vice of non-application of mind to the real controversy involved and the material placed on record. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that learned Judge has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence. It is submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered the term “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the delay in preferring the Appeal ought to have been condoned.

5. To support his submission, learned Advocate for the Petitioner has referred and relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited v. Kailashben Yogendra Shankar Pandya, reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL - HC 24577, whereby this Court has allowed the Petition. He has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Mahendrabhai Nagjibhai Patel v. Ilaben Mahendrabhai Patel, reported in 2005 (2) GLH 150 whereby also this Court has allowed the Revision Application.

Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has further submitted that refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. He therefore submitted that considering the judgments cited at the bar and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the delay ought to have been condoned by the learned Trial Judge in preferring the Appeal.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the Petitioners and also considered the contentions raised in the memo of petition and has also perused the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by the learned Judge in Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 2020 and has gone through the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the said order.

7. Needless to state that the guidelines while considering the applications for condonation of delay have been far too well settled. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mst. Katiji; 1987 (2) S.C.C. 107 : (AIR 1987 SC 1353), the guidelines have been laid down as under :

"(1) Litigant does not stand benefitted by lodging an appeal late;

(2) Refusal to condone may result in meritorious matters being thrown out at the very threshold and the cause of justice being defeated;

(3) In the matter of explanation of every day's delay, pedantic approach should be avoided. Rational common sense pragmatic approach should be invariably adopted;

(4) Substantial justice is to be preferred against technical flaws;

(5) There