1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 06.11.2008 and 05.04.2011.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been pursuing his case since the year 1994. Petitioner had led his entire evidence. However, due to his ill health, petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 07.05.2013. Consequently, application moved by the petitioner for restoration of the case was liable to be allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on N. Balakrishnan versus M. Krishnamurthy, 1998-LAWS(SC) 9-7, wherein it was held as under:

"It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not