### Advocate’s Negligence Does Not Bar Delay Condonation if Remediless Prejudice Exists to Litigant

The petitioner originally filed a suit in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Pardi, which was rejected on May 13, 2010

The petitioner subsequently filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2020 (re-numbered from Old No. 14 of 2010) against this judgment

On January 18, 2024, the appeal was dismissed for default by the 4th Additional District Court, Valsad @ Vapi, as the petitioner’s advocate failed to appear

The petitioner moved an application to set aside this ex-parte order along with a delay condonation application (CMA No. 22 of 2024) for a delay of 112 days

The District Court rejected the application on February 24, 2025, citing insufficient reasons for the delay

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

Whether the learned District Court erred in refusing to condone a delay of 112 days in an application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default

Whether the negligence of an advocate constitutes sufficient cause to prevent a litigant from being rendered remediless

The court applied principles governing the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act and Article 227 of the Constitution of India

While noting that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the mere absence of an advocate is not an automatic ground for condonation

the court emphasized the "justice-oriented view" over a "hyper-technical approach"

The court relied on the principle that a party should not be left remediless due to the professional negligence of their counsel, provided that any inconvenience to the legal system is adequately compensated by costs

The Court observed that the primary reason for the delay and the initial dismissal was the negligence of the petitioner’s advocate in failing to appear

The Court reasoned that if the delay of 112 days was not condoned, the petitioner would be left without any legal remedy to contest the original judgment and decree

While acknowledging that the technical reasons assigned might be weak, the High Court held that the interest of justice outweighs technicalities

To balance the equities and address the delay, the Court noted that the petitioner had already deposited a cost of ₹10,000 as per a previous coordinate bench order and deemed that a further imposition of costs would be more appropriate than a dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds

The Court condoned the 112-day delay on the condition that the petitioner deposits an additional cost of ₹5,000 within two weeks

Consequently, the Additional District Court was directed to decide the restoration application on its merits