Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—The present Civil Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred by the applicant-original plaintiff to condone the delay of 71 days in preferring the Second Appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gondal dated 31/07/1995 in Regular Civil Suit No. 300/1993 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Gondal dated 05/09/2009 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 79/1995 by which both the Courts below have dismissed the suit preferred by the applicant-original plaintiff. 2. Ms. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff has requested to condone the delay of 71 days in preferring the Appeal by reiterating what is stated in the application as well as further affidavits in support of the application. It is submitted that as such there was no deliberate delay on the part of the applicant-original plaintiff in not preferring the Appeal within the stipulated period of limitation. It is submitted by Ms. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original plaintiff that by not preferring the Appeal within the stipulated period of limitation the applicant-original plaintiff was not to gain anything. It is submitted that while completing the procedure and taking the decision of preferring the Appeal by various Officers stationed at different places the delay has occurred and, therefore, it is requested to condone the delay and give an opportunity to the applicant-original plaintiff to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting it on the technical ground of delay. 3. The present application is opposed by Shri S.M. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that as such no sufficient cause was shown in the application at the first instance. It is submitted that whatsoever is stated in the subsequent affidavits explaining the delay should be ignored and/or is not required to be considered. It is further submitted that the affidavits have been filed by different Officers stationed at different places, who has no personal knowledge and, therefore, the further affidavits in support of the application are not required to be considered. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. It is further submitted that the affidavits have been filed by different Officers stationed at different places, who has no personal knowledge and, therefore, the further affidavits in support of the application are not required to be considered. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 3043 ; in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh & Anr vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1981 GLR 268 as well as the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad vs. Voltas Ltd. reported in 1994 (2) GLR 1325 , it is requested to dismiss the present application. 4. It is submitted that, in case, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in that case, the applicant-original plaintiff may be directed to pay the cost so that in future it may take care in preferring the Appeal within the stipulated time. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length so far as the delay condone application is concerned. It is required to be noted that as such there is a delay of 71 days in preferring the Second Appeal. It is required to be noted that as such it is not the case on behalf of the respondents that the applicant-original plaintiff preferred the Appeal belatedly and with a mala fide intention. It is also not the case on behalf of the respondents that by not preferring the Appeal within the stipulated period of limitation, the applicant-original plaintiff has gained anything. This Court has considered the averments made in the application as well as the further affidavits in support of the application and this Court is satisfied that the delay of 71 days in preferring the Second Appeal is sufficiently explained. The contention on behalf of the respondents that further affidavits explaining the delay are not required to be considered cannot be accepted. Now so far as the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Supra) and Ajit Singh Thakur Singh & Anr. The contention on behalf of the respondents that further affidavits explaining the delay are not required to be considered cannot be accepted. Now so far as the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Supra) and Ajit Singh Thakur Singh & Anr. (Supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents is concerned, it is required to be noted that the said decisions shall not be applicable and/or of any assistance to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated hereinabove, the applicant-original plaintiff have sufficiently explained the delay of 71 days in preferring the Second Appeal. In the aforesaid decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stated that despite sufficient cause the delay is not required to be condoned at all. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity be given to the applicant to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting it on the technical ground of delay. At the same time, the alternative prayer of the respondents to impose cost deserves consideration. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application succeeds. The delay caused in preferring the Appeal is hereby condoned on condition that the applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today and on such deposit, Registry is directed to pay the same to the respondents by an account payee cheque, which may be given to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. Rule is made absolute accordingly. P P P P P