The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal and justice-oriented approach in matters of condonation of delay, as emphasized by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and relevant case law.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.P. Champaneri for the petitioner. Though served, learned advocate Mr. H.R. Prajapati appearing for respondent Nos.1.1 to 3.3 remained absent when the matter was called out. Notice has been served upon respondent Nos.1.5 and 3.1, but none appears on their behalf, today.

2. The petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.3.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2017 below Exh.12 and further prayed to restore the proceedings of Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 2015 which came to be rejected vide order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed Special Civil Suit No.170 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge, Gandhinagar which came to be rejected by the judgment and decree dated 7.3.2015 against which the present petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 2015 before the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar. When the appeal came up for final hearing, learned advocate for the applicant could not remain present because of social reasons and therefore the said appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.

4. It is further submitted that the application for condonation of delay of 270 days was filed by the present petitioner being Civil Misc. Application No.73 of 2017 and the reasons assigned in the said application were mainly three fold. One of the reasons assigned by the petitioner is that the advocate of the petitioner who appeared before the learned District Court had gone out of India for some religious purpose and could not remain present on the date when the matter was dismissed. The learned advocate for the applicant returned from foreign country on 16.10.2016 and from 22nd September, 2016 to 13th February, 2017, the petitioner went to USA to meet his son and the third reason is when the learned advocate who appeared in the said appeal on 6.3.2017 noticed that the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, certified copies of the impugned order were obtained and immediately the Restoration Application coupled with Delay Condonation Application came to be filed, however, the delay of 270 days was not condoned. It is also submitted that the applicant has a very good case both; on facts, as well as on law in the appeal and by allowing the application for condonation of delay, the opportunity may be given to the petitioner to place his case before the Court.

5. I have considered the submissions and the averments made in the petition. It transpires that delay in filing an application for restoration of Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 2015 is 270 days. The reasons assigned in the application for condonation of delay is that the petitioner was not aware about dismissal of the Appeal for want of prosecution.

6. The knowledge about the dismissal of the appeal was noticed when the learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner found that the appeal is dismissed on 18.10.2016 for want of prosecution and thereafter, the certified copies were obtained from the Registry and preferred the present application.

7. It transpires that the learned trial Court has considered the decision of this Court in the case of Samusunisha Begaum w/o Dr. Nasrullaahkhan Dhaniani and others v. Vishnukumar Ambelal Patel and others reported in 2012 (2) GLH 725, wherein there was a delay of 5 years in initiating the proceedings. The present is not such a case. In the present case, delay is only 270 days which can be condoned subject to some cost.

8. It is needless to observe that in catena of decisions, the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is, while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the liberal and justice oriented approach needs to be adopted so that the substantive rights of the parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. To meet with the equity