ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails a legality and correctness of the order dated 21.06.2014 passed below Exh.1 in delay condone application no.238 of 2012 by which the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, was pleased to reject the said delay condone application and did not satisfy with the reasons, preventing the petitioner for not preferring the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree in a prescribed time limit.

2. This Court has heard learned counsels Mr.Viral Shah and K.V. Shelat for the respective parties.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present petition are that the respondent plaintiff filed a HRP Suit No.1136 of 1994, in the Court of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, for possession of the suit property on the ground that tenant Baluben Masruji – original defendant was arrears on rent and she acquired suitable alternative accommodation. The defendant tenant had contested the suit by filing her written statement at Exh.30. After considering the pleadings, the Court-below framed issues at Exh.50. During the suit proceedings, the plaintiff entered into witness box on 11.07.2001 and after completion of preliminary cross-examination of the plaintiff by advocate of tenant defendant, he sought adjournment so as to enable him to obtain necessary instructions and accordingly, the matter was adjourned for further cross examination on 20.07.2001. Again on that day, the defendant’s advocate applied for time and the matter was adjourned on 07.08.2001. On 07.08.2001, when the matter was taken, learned advocate for the defendant filed “no instructions pursis”. In these circumstances, the Court-below closed the right of the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings on 16.08.2001. On 16.08.2001, the plaintiff closed his evidence by passing pursis at Exh.37 and case was adjourned on 03.09.2001 for recording the evidence of defendant side. On 03.09.2001, counsel for the defendant submitted the pursis intending his withdrawal from the case along with letter of intimation sent to the petitioner defendant through RPAD and acknowledgment thereof. The case was proceeded further ex-parte. The suit was decreed by the Court-below vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.2001. The defendant tenant directed to handover the vacate and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on or before 31.12.2001.

In the aforesaid facts, in order to get fruits of the decree, the execution petition no.54 of 2012, filed by the respondent plaintiff and service of notice was served upon the tenant defendant.

4. The tenant Baluben Masruji, after receiving the execution petition, came to know about the decree for eviction and accordingly, after getting certified copies of the judgment and decree filed an appeal, along with the delay condone application no.238 of 2012. In the first round of litigation, the said application came to be rejected by the Court-below vide its order dated 20.09.2012 and the same was challenged by filing Special Civil Application before this Court. The matter was remanded back to the Court-below to decide the delay condone application afresh. The Appellate Division Bench vide its order dated 21.06.2014, did not agree with the explanation in causing the delay of more than 11 years and accordingly, the application came to be rejected.

5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the original defendant Baluben preferred present petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of this petition, original tenant and her husband passed away. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant.

6. Mr.Viral Shah, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners, has raised the contentions that the impugned order suffers from erroneous exercise of jurisdiction which is apparent on the face of record and the sam