IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing an appeal must be accompanied by a sufficient cause and a demonstration of diligence in pursuing the remedy, as negligence and lack of bona fide intention may not warrant condonation of delay.

ORDER :

1. The present petition has been filed by the present petitioner (original defendant – appellant) by challenging the judgment and order dated 26.05.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Application No.102 of 2022 by the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Nadiad, Kheda, whereby the lower appellate court has dismissed the application.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that the present petitioner is the owner of land bearing block/survey no. 526/4 paiki B admeasuring 0-24-88 square meters situated at Antroli village, Matar Taluka, Kheda District, (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question', for short) by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23.09.2013 executed by the respondent herein. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the respondent, in the year 2016, preferred a Regular Civil Suit No.25 of 2016 seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deed against the petitioner on the ground of no/inadequate consideration received by the respondent while executing the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that subsequently, after filing of the suit, the respondent gave false assurance to the petitioner of settling the dispute outside the court and hence the petitioner in good faith, relied upon the said assurance made by the respondent and thereby didn't attend the court proceeding regularly. However, the respondent, by keeping the petitioner under false belief, proceeded with the suit & obtained a judgment & decree of cancellation of sale deed in his favour on date 31.12.2016, without there being any contest from the side of the petitioner herein. Subsequently, upon acquiring the knowledge of the said decree, the petitioner again approached the respondent to know the status of the settlement proposal as indicated by the respondent previously, but the respondent started giving vague and absurd replies and hence. the petitioner, for the first time, became aware about the ill intention of the respondent herein. Thereafter, on 10.10.2018, after gathering all the papers, the petitioner handed over the same to Mr. Vasant since he assured the petitioner that he would be filing the appeal through a person, who is very well known to him. Subsequently, upon inquiry, the petitioner became aware that the appeal has been filed and further the aforementioned person i.e. Mr. Vasant was not found in the village and he had stopped picking up the calls of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner again preferred again an application to get all the papers from the trial court on 14.2.2022 and the same were received by the petitioner on date 23.3.2022.

It is further the case of the petitioner in this petitioner that the Petitioner, as a result, preferred the appeal along with application for condonation of delay viz. Civil Misc. Application No. 102 of 2022 before the lower appellate court on 04.05.2022. Subsequently, the Lower Court has dismissed the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Hence, the petition has been preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Jenil M. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. He has submitted that pursuant to earlier order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, he has already filed additional affidavit-in-reply. By relying on the said affidavit by pointing out various aspects as well as documents annexed with the affidavit, he has submitted that from the bar reading of the affidavit, it transpires that sufficient cause is made out and the petitioner is not deliberately delaying the proceeding, but the circumstances are beyond his control and, therefore, he could not pursue the remedy vigilantly as required under the law. Hence, he has good ground on merits to contest the proceeding in appeal as the suit itself is not maintainable. Furthermore, he has submitted that the Court should take liberal view while considering the delay and length of