ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Prem K. Shah, learned advocate on behalf of Mr. Maulik M. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

b) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and and order dated set aside the judgment 04.07.2025 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Navsari in Civil Misc. Application (Delay) No.02 of 2023 (Annexure-A);

c) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to condone the delay of 4446 days in filing the Regular Civil Appeal against the order dated 06.10.2010 passed in RCS No.118/2008 and direct restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits;

d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 04.07.2025;

e) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Mr. Shah, learned advocate, would submit that the Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay of 4446 days in filing the Appeal by considering the averments made in the delay application. It is submitted that there is a sufficient cause made out by the petitioner and the delay in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, which ought to have been considered in light of the fact that the petitioner was coming from the lower strata of society and, as such, in absence of legal advice which he had not received in time, the delay was caused in filing the appeal.

4. Mr. Shah, learned advocate, has invited attention of this Court to para-3 of the impugned delay application and would submit that sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner by stating the reason in para-3 of the impugned application. It is submitted that the Appellate Court has taken very hyper-technical view and not entertained the delay application. It is further submitted that this Court may entertain this petition and condone the delay in the interest of justice.

5. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner at length and upon perusal of the impugned delay application as well as the order impugned in this petition, as such, there is not only gross and inordinate delay in filing the appeal, but there is a complete carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the legal remedy, as the appeal came to be filed after about 12 years from the passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the Trial Court.

6. The petitioner is unable to dispute the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 06.10.2010, whereas the appeal/impugned delay application filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court on 09.01.2021, thereby, there was a delay of 4446 days in filing such appeal. It is not even pleaded that petitioner was not aware about the impugned judgement/decree passed by trial court on 06.10.2010. Rather very vague and general statements were made in the impugned delay application that due to his son’s study, social reasons poor financial, and ignorance of law, he could not file appeal. The petitioner went to the extent that due to COVID-19 situation also one of the factors prevented him to file appeal. According to my view, none of such explanation constitute sufficient cause in absence of material particulars in support of it.

7. The Appellate Court, after appreciating the contentions of the petitioner and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex