Sufficient cause for delay in restoration application must be construed liberally to ensure adjudication on merits.

The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 2017, which was dismissed for default on 13.07.2023 due to their non-appearance and failure to submit oral evidence.

The petitioners filed a restoration application (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 31 of 2024) with a delay of 10 months.

The delay was attributed to the advanced age and heart disease of Plaintiff No. 1, the death of Plaintiff No. 2 in 2019, and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Trial Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda) rejected the delay condonation application on 13.03.2025, adopting what the petitioners termed a "hyper-technical" approach.

The petitioners challenged this rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to condone the 10-month delay in filing the restoration application despite the uncontroverted medical and personal reasons provided by the petitioners.

2. Whether "sufficient cause" for delay should be interpreted liberally to ensure cases are decided on merits rather than technicalities.

The Court applied the principle of "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act, emphasizing that it must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice.

The Court relied on the doctrine that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided unless there is evidence of gross negligence, inordinate delay without explanation, or mala fide intentions.

It also considered the discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities in subordinate court orders.

The High Court observed that the respondents failed to file a reply to the delay application in the Trial Court, leaving the petitioners' assertions regarding heart disease and the death of a party "uncontroverted".

The Court found that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on litigants and the specific health grievances of the elderly plaintiffs.

The Court reasoned that there was no evidenced mala fide intention to delay the trial.

It held that instead of dismissing the suit on technical grounds, the Trial Court should have exercised its discretion to condone the delay by compensating the other side with costs, thereby allowing the suit to be heard on its merits.

The Court condoned the 10-month delay in filing the restoration application.

As a condition previously set by the High Court, the petitioners deposited ₹15,000, which the Court directed to be transferred to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kheda, rather than the respondents, since the respondents did not appear to contest the matter. The Trial Court is directed to hear and decide the restoration application of Special Civil Suit No. 52 of 2017 on its merits.