JUDGMENT :

1. Rule.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the learned 22nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Misc. Civil Application (Delay) No. 59 of 2018. By the said application, the petitioner had prayed for to condone the delay of 82 days caused in preferring the suit for implementation of the Promissory Note, which came to be rejected vide impugned order.

3. Though duly served and sufficient opportunity was given to the respondents, they put in no appearance, leaving no option but to proceed with the matter.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Sikander Saiyed for the petitioner.

4.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order suffers from material illegality and perversity inasmuch as, the learned trial Judge has failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Act) in true and proper perspective. He submitted that while dealing with the application in question, the learned trial Judge has only considered the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and has not considered Section 5 of the Act, which clearly stipulates that any appeal or application may be admitted even after the limitation is over, if the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not filing such an appeal or application. He submitted that despite sufficient cause having been shown, the learned trial Judge did not consider the same and outright rejected the application on the ground of nonapplicability of the Limitation Act to the suits. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that otherwise the petitioner has a good case on merits and such a technicality cannot be a bar to pursue the legitimate right of the petitioner. He submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order before the learned District Court was not accepted for the reason of no jurisdiction and hence, the petitioner is before this Court by this petition. Thus, making such submissions, he urged that this petition may be allowed and to quash and set aside the impugned order and also to direct the trial Court to register the suit.

5. Regard being had to the submissions made and perusing the impugned order vis-a-vis the material on record, it emerges that in the suit sought to be filed by the petitioner for implementation of the promissory note, there was a delay of 82 days and hence, the petitioner preferred the Misc. Civil Application No. 59 of 2018 for condonation of such delay, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 09.11.2020 and hence, the grieved petitioner is before this Court.

5.1 At the outset, it would be worthwhile to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein, the Court has considered in detail the scope of interference by this Court to hold and observe that Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court Suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power would be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, read as under:

“57. Articles 226 and 227 stand on substantially different footing. As noted above, prior to the Constitution, the Chartered High Courts as also the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could issue prerogative writs in exercise of their original jurisdiction. [See 1986 (suppl.) SCC 401 at page 469)].

58. However, after the Constitution every High Court has been conferred with the power to issue writs under Article 226 and these are original proceeding. [State of U.P. and others vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Mahara j - AIR 1963 SC 946, page 951].

59. The jurisdiction under Article 227 on the other hand is not original nor is it appellate. This jur