2025:UHC:6227 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1408/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, 2. Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.04.2023, passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2021. By the said order, VIth Additional District Judge allowed the appeal filed by legal representatives of plaintiff (respondents herein) against dismissal of their application, seeking condonation of delay, in filing restoration application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The said order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground the Trial Court had rejected the delay condonation application on the ground that the delay of 18 years was not properly explained, therefore, Appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the Trial Court’s order. 4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by VIth Additional District Judge. Learned Appellate Court has relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and 2025:UHC:6227 State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani & others, AIR 1996 SC 1623, for holding that while considering prayer for delay condonation, liberal and justice oriented approach should be adopted. 5. This Court concurs with the view taken by learned Appellate Court. Even though, there was delay of about 18 years, however, in the delay condonation application, the stand taken by the legal representatives of the plaintiff was that their father, who was serving in ONGC, became critically ill in 1999, due to which, he had to seek voluntary retirement and thereafter he passed away in 2008 and the legal representatives were not aware about pendency of the suit and they came to know about the same only on 29.05.2016 when a neighbour informed them about pendency of some case. 6. Since the view taken by learned VIth Additional District Judge is in consonance with the law of the land, therefore, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 7. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. Since the suit was filed in 1992 and more than 32 years have gone by, therefore, learned Trial Court is requested to make endeavour to decide the suit, within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df00 6da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875 643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.18 09:43:28 +05'30'