- (1.)Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dtd. 29/9/2021 passed by the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.251 of 2018 (Delay Condonation Application) the plaintiffs, who are respondent nos. 1 to 5 in the Civil Miscellaneous Application have preferred this revision application.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the present revision application in nutshell are as under.
2.1.Mr.Govindbhai Prajapati and Mr.Maganlal Prajapati executed registered lease deed in favour of the respondent, where by the land situated at survey no. 153 of village Achher of Taluka and City of Ahmedabad admeasuring 2,788 square yards, at monthly rate of Rs.351.00 with effect from 1/8/1962. The lease deed expired due to efflux of time period on 31/7/1982. That respondent no. 1 did not vacated the premises and occupied the land for more than 40 years without paying any rent since 31/7/1997. the plaintiff therefore preferred the HRP Suit No.1790 of 1997, before the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad for decree of possession and mense profit, which came to be allowed by the Trial Court.

2.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of eviction, the defendant preferred appeal before the Small Causes Court being Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2006, which came to be dismissed for default on 8/11/2017. Thereafter, when the bailiff went for execution of possession warrant, the defendant approached appellate court for restoring the appeal and as their was a delay of 263 days in preferring the Restoration Application, it had filed the Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 251 of 2018 which came to be allowed by the appellate court condoning the delay with the condition that the defendant- appellant therein shall deposit Rs.15,000.00 as cost payable to the plaintiff- respondent. This order of the appellate court has been challenged by the plaintiff by preferring this revision application.

(3.)The main contention of the plaintiff is that there was no cause for condoning the delay as the conduct of the defendant in not prosecuting the appeal was believed by the Appellate Court in its order. It is also contended that the Appellate Court has failed to consider the facts that appeal was pending for 10 years and it was not prosecuted by the advocate for the defendant and it was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution. According to the plaintiff, considering the gross misconduct on the part of the defendant no. 1, delay ought not to have been condoned by the Appellate Court. It is also contended that the defendant no.1 was negligent in conducting the matter and therefore, the Appellate Court could not have allowed the delay condone application especially when the defendant no. 1 is occupying the land without any legal title and without paying any money to the plaintiff and it has tried to handover the part of the possession to the third party.