The discretionary power to condone delay requires proof of sufficient cause. It cannot be exercised in cases of gross negligence, inordinate delay, or where a litigant blames their counsel while failing to maintain personal vigilance over their own pending judicial matters.

ORDER

1. By way of the present Civil Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

“11(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application and condone the delay of 2154 days in filing the Civil Application;

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the applicant, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Going to the facts of the case, by way of First Appeal, the appellants have preferred the present First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.267 of 2007, whereby the suit of respondent was decreed in his favour, directing the appellants to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the sole respondent expired on 20.08.2018. The present applicants have filed the present application to condone the delay caused in preferring the application for setting aside the abatement and for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jay S. Dakwala for learned advocate Mr.Viral Shah appearing for the applicants and learned advocate Mr.Amit Patel for respondent No.1.1.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the applicants-original petitioner mainly submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the death of the sole respondent. He further submitted that, though the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner had been informed about the death of the sole respondent, no steps were taken to file an application for bringing on record the heirs and legal representatives of the sole respondent. He also submitted that the applicants cannot be made to sufferer for the fault of the learned advocate. He submitted that, by filing the present application alongwith an additional affidavit, applicants have sufficiently explained the delay and has made out case for its condonation. Thus, learned advocate for the applicant prayed that, this Court should take a pragmatic approach and condone the delay, particularly when the First Appeal has already been admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 17th September, 2013.

4.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate for the applicants have prayed to allow the present application.

5. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate appearing for the proposed heirs referred to the letter dated 12th December, 2019 written by learned advocate for the deceased –respondent to the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and submits that, on 12th August, 2018, learned advocate appearing for the respondent had been elevated to the Bench of this High Court and had informed to the learned advocate appearing for the appellants about the death of the sole respondent. He further submitted that, alongwith the letter, a copy of the death certificate was also supplied, and the details of the heirs and legal representatives of sole respondent were also provided. He referred to Annexure-R/1 and submitted that the learned advocate appearing for the respondent had followed the statutory mandate under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore the appellants cannot now claim that they were not aware about the death of the respondent.

5.1 In view of the above submissions, he submits that the present application is devoid of merit, deserves no consideration. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the present application.

6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides. The facts remain that the appellants challenge the eviction order passed b