JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This is an appeal of the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board against one M/s. Cheema Paper Mill private limited. The appellants was the defendants in the Court below where the suit was filed challenging the legality of electricity bill given to the plaintiff/respondent was under challenge. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 24.12.1998 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Aggrieved, the defendants/ appellants has filed first appeal being First Appeal No. 260 of 1999 before the Allahabad High Court. Consequently, appeal was admitted by the Allahabad High Court on 23.3.1999 and notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent. Since the matter pertains to the territory, which is now within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttarakhand, which was created under an act by parliament known as U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, it stood transferred to this Court under section 35 of the Act. On the records being transferred to this Court, it shows that on 3.4.2002, the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The said order reads as under :- "None appears for appellants at the revision of list. Hence the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, is vacated." 2. There is nothing on record to show that after the transfer of the present matter to this Court, any further notices were issued to the parties by this Court. Now after the delay of almost 10 years i.e., after 3,374 days, a restoration application has been filed by the defendants/appellants. This application for recalling the order dated 3.4.2002 is.being treated as an application under section 151 Civil Procedure Code read with Order 41, Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the delay condonation application. 4. Reasons assigned in the affidavit filed alongwith the delay condonation application are that the applicant had no notice of the matter being listed in this Court on 3.4.2002 (when it was dismissed for non prosecution). 5. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has vehemently urged that this application being highly belated must be rejected at the very threshold. More, particularly he states that there are no plausible reasons assigned in the affidavit for eondoning this inordinate delay. 6. 5. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has vehemently urged that this application being highly belated must be rejected at the very threshold. More, particularly he states that there are no plausible reasons assigned in the affidavit for eondoning this inordinate delay. 6. Having heard the two Counsels, this Court is of the considered view that inspite of the inordinate delay the application must be allowed and the delay must be condoned. The reasons are as follows :- As far as possible, all cases before the Courts must be decided on its merits. Admittedly, the present case was dismissed for want of prosecution without giving any notice to the appellant about the matter to be taken up by the Court under Order 41, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. Order 41, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code states as under : "17. Dismissal of appeal for appellants default.-(1) Where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed." 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/appellants has submitted that on 3.4.2002 there was no "day fixed" in the matter, as there is no order on record to suggest that the Court had fixed the matter for 3.4.2002. Therefore, definitely when the matter was listed before this Court, it cannot be said to be a "day fixed" or a date fixed matter. Moreover, it is also very clear that appellants had no knowledge or notice about the fact that the matter is to be listed before this Court on 3.4.2002. Therefore strictly speaking when the matter was dismissed on 3.4.2002 by a learned Single Judge of this Court it cannot be treated to have been dismissed under Order 41, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/appellants Mr. B. D. Upadhyay, in support of condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, has cited two judgments of Allahabad High Court : (i) Bhatwati Prasad and another v. Ram Roop Tewari and others AIR 1962 Alld 622. (ii) Md. Ali v. Governor-General in Council AIR (36) 1949 Alld 36. 9. In both the said rulings cited by Senior Counsel Mr. (ii) Md. Ali v. Governor-General in Council AIR (36) 1949 Alld 36. 9. In both the said rulings cited by Senior Counsel Mr. B. D. Upadhyay in his favour, it has been held that when the matter was dismissed on a particular date when it was not a day fixed matter it cannot be said that it has been dismissed under Order 41, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, and consequently no limitation would apply in such matter as contemplated under the Limitation Act. Moreover, under Order 41, Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code, an appeal can always be readmitted when it is proved by the applicant that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called for hearing. 10. This Court is satisfied on the grounds urged in the affidavit to the delay condonation application that since the applicants had no knowledge about the matter being fixed his absence is bona fide and the delay is liable to be condoned. Senior Counsel Mr. B. D. Upadhyay has relied upon another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subhash Chandra v. State of Uttaranchal and another 2002 (1) ELC 231 (SC), where the matter pertains to this Court which was transferred from Allahabad High Court under section 35 U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, where for non appearance of the parties the criminal revision was dismissed. The revision subsequently went before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court found that it should not be dismissed in the manner it was done and should have been heard on its merits and, therefore, in the interest of justice remitted the matter to this Court. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement reads as under :- "4. The order, thus, being in violation of the basic principle of natural justice cannot be sustained. The order, therefore, recalled. The matter is remitted back to the High Court of Uttaranchal for being dealt with on merit upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 11. Though the matter relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the applicants/appellants Mr. The order, therefore, recalled. The matter is remitted back to the High Court of Uttaranchal for being dealt with on merit upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 11. Though the matter relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the applicants/appellants Mr. B. D. Upadhyay pertains to a criminal revision, all the same, this Court is of the opinion that broadly same principle would be attracted attract in the present case as the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should be heard on its merit. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/appellants has further cited a case, namely, Laxmi and others v. Beg Ram 2011 (2) UD 111 ., where a delay condonation application was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court after citing a judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under :- "10. While propounding absolute honour to the judgements cited on behalf of the respondent, I am of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio of law, cited by the respondent, is not applicable in the matter in hand in its entirety. Rather, I am fortified with the view taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition and another v. M.S.T. Katiji and others, whereby Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that applicability of section-5 of Limitation Act, 1963 would be determined in existence of 'sufficient cause' and Courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach. For the forgoing reasons, the delay condonation application deserves to be allowed. The delay condonation application is accordingly, allowed. The restoration application is treated to have been filed within time. Consequently, objection on delay condonation application (CLMA No. 2358/2011) is rejected." 13. There was also a considerable delay (which was condoned) in the above case. 14. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in filing the present restoration application is condoned. Condonation Application (CLMA No. 7879 of 2011) is allowed. 15. Heard learned Counsels on the application for readmitting/recalling the order dated 3.4.2002. 16. There was also a considerable delay (which was condoned) in the above case. 14. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in filing the present restoration application is condoned. Condonation Application (CLMA No. 7879 of 2011) is allowed. 15. Heard learned Counsels on the application for readmitting/recalling the order dated 3.4.2002. 16. This Court having condoned the delay in the present matter also finds that the applicants/appellants was prevented for justifiable reasons for non appearance on the date i.e., 3.4.2002 and in the interest of justice, the restoration application (MCC No. 571 of 2011) is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The appeal is readmitted to its original number. This Court has been informed that consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, records have been sent to the Lower Court. 17. Let a special messenger be sent to procure the entire records (which would mean the records of Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court). Registry should give a copy of this order to the special messenger. The special messenger shall be sent on payment of cost by the defendants/appellants within three weeks. 18. Since the matter is extremely old, list this matter after three weeks in a daily cause list after the Lower Court records are received. Restoration Allowed.