Delay of six days condoned and writ appeal restored to prevent litigant prejudice due to counsel's procedural default.

The applicants sought the restoration of Writ Appeal No. 3142/2025, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution by a coordinate Division Bench on February 25, 2026

Along with the restoration application, the applicants filed I.A. No. 14148/2026 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 6-day delay in filing the restoration plea

The delay occurred because the applicants mistakenly believed the limitation period was 30 days and were further delayed by the court’s summer vacation

1. Whether the applicants established "sufficiency of cause" to condone the 6-day delay in filing the restoration application

2. Whether the Writ Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution should be restored in the interest of justice

The Court primarily applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, emphasizing that "sufficiency of cause" is the prime consideration for condoning delay

It relied on precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court, including Motilal Songara v. Prem Praksh alias Pappu (2013), Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023), and Vishnu Vardhar @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), regarding the adjudication of matters on merit

Furthermore, it applied the equitable principle that a litigant should not suffer for the faults of their counsel, citing M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam (2001) and Dindayal Bansal v. Gwalior Nagar Tatha Gram Vikas Pradhikaran (2007)

The Court found the reasons for the 6-day delay—procedural misconceptions and the intervention of summer vacations—to be genuine and bona fide

Regarding restoration, the Court noted that the dismissal was not deliberate or intentional but due to circumstances beyond the control of the counsel

The Court reasoned that procedural lapses should not cause irreparable prejudice to a party's right to be heard on merits

Uniquely, the Court introduced the concept of "Social Audit," suggesting that instead of a traditional monetary fine, the counsel perform community service at an old age home to sensitize legal professionals to the plight of the destitute

This elective "pious work" was tied to the procedural restoration to ensure a sense of social responsibility alongside legal relief

Consequently, the Court allowed the restoration application (MCC), ordering that Writ Appeal No. 3142/2025 be restored to its original number, subject to the counsel filing a report and affidavit regarding a one-hour visit and donation of food items (approx. Rs. 1,000) to Maa Narmada Vriddh Ashram

The Court also directed copies of the order to various government departments to contemplate the implementation of "Social Audit" policies