##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4225/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026

0.011867918206493022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4225 of 2026 =============================================

GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD Versus

AVADH CONSTRUCTION =============================================

Appearance:

MR.KUNAL J. VYAS, MR.DEVARTH TRIVEDI AND MR.RAJ SHAH FOR GANDHI LAW ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

Date : 27/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, suffice it to say that no good ground has been made out to attach any illegality to the order of the Commercial Court in rejecting the restoration application seeking for recall of the order dated 22.12.2022 of dismissal of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act' 1996, for default.

2. A bare perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay of 165 days indicates that the delay is sought to be explained in a very casual manner in paragraph Nos. '3' and

'4' thereof as under:-

“3. It is submitted the upon the captioned Application being transferred to the Ld. Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, Applicant was not aware that the same was being listed for hearing.

Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Apr 06 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 07:27:45 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/4225/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/03/2026

0.011867918206493022

However, upon getting the knowledge of the same, Applicant Advocate remained present on 17.10.2022 before the Ld. Court and sought adjournment. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant one adjournment and the matter was formally fixed on 22.12.2022. It is submitted that on the said date, the previous advocate of the Applicant was down with viral infection and thus, was unable to remain present before the Hon'ble Court. Thus, the Ld. Commercial Court passed the Order dismissing the application in

default for non-prosecution.

4. It is submitted that the circumstances referred to above were absolutely beyond the control of the Applicant and not owing to any default, neglect or laches on the part of Applicant. It is further submitted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the Applicant to not remain present before the Hon'ble Court. The perusal of rojkam would clearly show that the Applicant has remained present in the present matter prior to the matter being

transferred to Commercial Court on 08.06.2021.”

3. The restoration applicant was heard by the Commercial Court and it has reached at the conclusion in paragraph Nos.

'10' to '12' as under:-

“10. However, on going through the material available on record, it can clearly be seen that applicant miserably failed to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay of 165 days occurred in filing the present application i.e. to restore the Comm. C.M.A. No.332 of 2021 as the reasons shown by the applicant that due to viral infection of the previous advocate (for which no supporting evidence is produced) and order dtd.22.12.2022 passed for dismissing the restoration application for want non-prosecution came to know to him on 22.6.2023, are not sufficient. The reasons shown by the applicant that he came to know about the order on 22.6.2023 which is passed on 22.12.2022 itself shows that applicant is not vigilant in the matter. Moreover, in the dismissal order dtd.22.12.2022, it is mentioned that the matter was kept for seven times for hearing, which also required to be looked into. Further, as it reveals that the Arbitration award was passed on 16.5.2016, wherein, the opponent herein was succeeded and matter related to same is still pending, which ultimately affecting the fruits of the arbitral award awarded in favour of the opponent in the m