1. Heard Mr.S.N. Barot, learned counsel for the applicant-original petitioner and Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned A.G.P. for the opponents.
2. By way of this application, the applicant-original petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay of 744 days occurred in filing Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.1953 of 2011 in Special Civil Application (Stamp) No.2427 of 2009 which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-removal of office objections.
3. Mr.Barot, learned counsel for the applicant-original petitioner submits that as stated in paragraph No.3 of the application, the entire file of the present applicant was misplaced and the learned advocate for the applicant could not remove the office objections within the time stipulated by this Court (Coram: D.A. Mehta, J., as he then was) vide order dated 18.06.2009. Mr.Barot, learned counsel relying upon the averments made in the application, submitted that the applicant-original petitioner has a good case and, therefore, great injustice would be caused if the delay is not condoned, as prayed for, in the present application. Mr.Barot, learned counsel submitted that because of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, more particularly, because of papers having been misplaced, the applicant may not be rendered remedyless. Mr.Barot, learned counsel submitted that the delay is caused unintentionally and because of bona fide reason. Mr.Barot, learned counsel, therefore, submitted that application for condonation of delay of 744 days occurred in filing the aforesaid application for restoration of the main writ petition may be accepted and allowed.
4. Per contra, Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned A.G.P. vehemently opposed the present application. Ms.Thakore, learned A.G.P. submitted that as the reason assigned in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the application is not germane, no leniency deserves to be shown to the applicant-original petitioner. Ms.Thakore, learned A.G.P., therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be dismissed in limine.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the present application as well as the restoration application, which is filed by the applicant-original petitioner being Misc.Civil Application (Stamp) No.1953 of 2011, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has been able to establish sufficient cause in not preferring the aforesaid application for restoration in time. It is however, noteworthy that though the lenient view is taken by the Court in order to see that the applicant-original petitioner gets fair opportunity of placing his case to redress his grievance as formulated in the main writ petition being Special Civil Application (Stamp) No.2427 of 2009 and as the delay is of 744 days, the applicant should be saddled with appropriate cost.
6. In view of the above, even while taking lenient view in the matter and condoning the delay of 744 days occurred in preferring the aforesaid application, the applicant shall pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the opponents-original respondents within a period of 15 days from today.
7. Resultantly, the application is allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.2000/- by the applicant to the opponents within a period of 15 days from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
8. The Registry is directed to list Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.1953 of 2011, after the applicant-original petitioner produces the receipt of cost having paid to the opponents, as awarded above.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Hitesh Top