High Court's exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction is limited to instances of patent perversity or gross failure of justice, not to correct mere errors of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Rituraj M. Meena waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No.1. Though served, none appeared for and on behalf of respondent Nos.2.1 to 2.3 and 3.1 to 3.3.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, this matter was taken up for final hearing.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anand B. Gogia for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

4. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.2.2020 passed below Exh.74 and another order dated 16.12.2021 passed below Exhs.97 and 99 by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.4585 of 1991. The heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1 has filed Special Civil Application No.7840 of 2022 challenging the order dated 2.8.2021 passed below Exhs.83 and 84 by the learned City Civil Court in Civil Suit No.4585 of 1991.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff is the present petitioner alongwith one Kalavati Chandiram Bajaj filed a suit against defendant i.e. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ramchandra Sinhamal Maherchandani for the reliefs claimed in the suit. As per the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner, plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are relatives of each other. The said civil suit came to be dismissed for default on 26.2.2003. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed. The said application came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 31.8.2019. After that, an application under Order-1 Rule-10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was preferred by the Power of Attorney Holder (for short, hereinafter referred to as `the POA) of plaintiff No.2 on 19.12.2019. The said application Exh.74 came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court on 3.2.2020 for want of the date of death and even for want of death certificate of plaintiff No.1. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that due to mistake of the advocate, those details were not averred in the application. In light of those facts, the application Exh.74 came to be dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the POA of plaintiff No.2 filed application Exhs.97 and 99 for condonation of delay and bringing heirs of the deceased defendant No.2 on record respectively on 1.11.2021. The said applications vide common order dated 16.12.2021 came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court. Against these orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena states that the Corporation is a formal party in the present proceedings and hence no submissions are made on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the suit was dismissed for default on 26.2.2003 and the said suit came to be restored on 31.8.2019. Immediately thereafter, Exh.74 application was filed on 19.12.2019. In the said application due to mistake of the concerned advocate, the important details that is the date of death was not mentioned and death certificate was not produced resultantly, application came to be dismissed on 3.2.2020. It is further submitted that on 1.11.2021, again application Exh.97 for condonation of delay and application under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC below Exh.99 came to be filed. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order is not as per the provi