FAO 242/2025 1 $~ 100 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 1st , September , 2025 + FAO 242/2025 & CM APL. 54970 -54971/2025 POORAN KUM AR ...Appellant Through: M r. D.K. Singh, Advocate along with appellant in person. versus M /S. PRIDE HOTELS LTD ...Respondent Through: None. CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE M ANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Appellant had filed a suit seking recovery. 2. The suit was filed before this Court on its Original S ide but with the change in pecuniary jurisdiction, it got transfered to District Courts. 3. W hen the abovesaid suit was taken up by the learned District Courts on 01.09.2019, it was dismissed for non -prosecution for the reason that there was no appearance f rom the side of the plaintiff. 4. After , virtually , five year s, an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC was filed by the plaintif seking restoration of his suit. 5. Acording to him, on acount of untimely death of his father on 12.08.2019 (prior to the date of dismissal of the suit), he suffered mental agony and could not follow up the matter for some months. He also mentioned , in his application , that he was under the impression that his counsel would take care of the suit and, therefore, he never bothered t o check FAO 242/2025 2 the dates on regular basis as he was fully dependent upon his counsel , who always assured him th at he was acting in his best interest. Acording to him, when he contacted his counsel in M arch, 2020, h e was apprised that his case had ben adjourned sine die and would only be taken up once the pandemic of Covid -19 was over. 6. Acording to him, some of the similarly situated claimants had gone to National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seking relief again st the same defendant and , when he learnt that some of such claimants had ben able to get relief from concerned Resolution Professional (RP) , he immediately contacted RP appointed by NCLT who apprised him that his claim was not there with him and, therefore, he approached a new counsel who t hen told him th at his matter had already ben dismissed -in -default way back on 01.11.2019. 7. Interestingly, acording to plaintif, appellant , though , he had ben able to contact a new counsel , but his agony continue d as even his new counsel fell sick and under went surgery and, therefore, nothing could be done for another couple of months. 8. It was in the abovesaid backdrop that he filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seking restoration of his suit and the grievance is with respect to dismissal of his such application . 9. Reference be made to Union of India vs Jahangir Byramji Jejeebhoy: SC OnLine SC 489 ZKHUHLQ +RQ¶ ble Supreme Court has observed that length of delay is also a relevant fact which the Court should take into acount while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. It observed that the Court owed a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation ofered by the parties seking condonation and it is only when suficient cause