JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned advocate for the respondent, the petition is heard and decided finally. 2. Heard Mr. Saiyad, learend advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for respondents. 3. The petitioners have taken out present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs: "7(A) Your Lordships Be Pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order of the Ld. 4th Additional District Judge, Dahod dated 22/03/2012, passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 26/2012 in the interest of Justice; (B) Your Lordships Be Pleased to condone the delay of about 6 years and 2 months in preferring the restoration application in Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004 before the Ld. 4th Additional District Judge, Dahod in the interest of Justice;" 4. Petitioner No.3 had filed a suit which was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.510 of 1998 in the Court of learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Godhra. It appears that the said suit was filed with prayer for appropriate declaration and injunction. 4.1. From the averments in the petition and the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioners and the respondents, it has emerged that the said suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.3.1996. 4.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 8.3.1996, father of petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/6 and father of petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/3 and petitioner No.3 filed an appeal which was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1996 before the learned District Judge, Godhra. 4.3. The petitioners have claimed that somewhere in 2004 on bifurcation of the district, the said Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1996 came to be transferred to the learned District Court, Dahod. 4.4. Upon transfer of the proceedings, the said Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1996 was renumbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2004. 4.5. The petitioners have claimed that father of petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/6 and father of petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/3 and petitioner No.3 were not aware about the said development, i.e. transfer of the appeal from Godhra to Dahod. 4.6. 4.5. The petitioners have claimed that father of petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/6 and father of petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/3 and petitioner No.3 were not aware about the said development, i.e. transfer of the appeal from Godhra to Dahod. 4.6. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the petitioners have asserted and emphasised that the Notice issued by the Court informing about the transfer of proceedings was addressed to and served on the advocate and not the appellants. 4.7. It is also claimed that even the learned advocate who appeared on behalf of father of petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/6 and father of petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/3 and petitioner No. 3 in the proceedings of the appeal at Godhra had not informed them that the proceedings were transferred. 4.8. The petitioners have also claimed that the learned advocate, who was appearing in the matter, ordinarily practices at Godhra and therefore, he did not attend the proceedings of the appeal at Dahod. 4.9. Consequently, neither learned advocate attended the hearing nor father of petitioners No.1/1 to 1/6 and father of petitioners No.2/1 to 2/3 and petitioner No.3 could attend the hearing because they did not know that the proceedings of the appeal were transferred to Dahod. 4.10. It appears that the learned Joint District and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dahod, vide order dated 5.3.2005, dismissed the said Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004 (i.e. the appeal which was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.33 of 1996 at Godhra) on the ground of non-prosecution. 4.11. In this context, the petitioners have averred in the petition that: "3.4 That on 05.03.2005, Ld. Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dahod was pleased to dismiss the Regular Civil Appeal No.33/1996 which was renumbered as Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004 for default as advocate and the parties could not remain present. Annexed hereto and marked as "ANNEXURE: C" to this petition is the copy of the Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004 and order passed dismissing the appeal for default dated 05.03.2005. 3.5 That the father of the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/6 and the father of the petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/3 were aware about the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Court at Godhara. 3.5 That the father of the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/6 and the father of the petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/3 were aware about the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Court at Godhara. That the father of the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/6 and the father of the petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/3 were not keeping well and therefore they could not inquire about the appeal pending before the Ld. District Court, Godhara. 3.6 That on 11.11.2008, the father of the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/6 had expired due to sickness. That on 03.08.2010, the father of the petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/3 had also expired due to sickness. That the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/6 and the petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/3 were trying to manage the properties of the father of the petitioner No. 1/1 to 1/6 and the father of the petitioner No. 2/1 to 2/3 and therefore they came to know about the appeal pending before the District Court, Godhara. That the petitioners had verified at the District Court Godhara and therefore they came to know that the appeal was transferred to the District Court, Dahod and the same was dismissed for default." 4.12. The petitioners have claimed that immediately after they came to know that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, they made arrangement for preferring application seeking restoration of the proceedings. 4.13. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Application No.26 of 2011 came to be filed before the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dahod whereby the petitioners prayed for restoration of Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004. 4.14. Alongwith the said application, the petitioners also filed application seeking condonation of delay. 4.15. The said application/s came to be rejected by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dahod vide impugned order dated 22.3.2012. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have taken out present petition. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that though Rojkam records that the notices were issued, however, actually, the notice, if served, was served to the learned advocate and not to the petitioners or their father/appellant and that, therefore, the petitioners were not aware about the transfer of proceedings. He submitted that learned advocate had not informed original plaintiffs/appellants about the transfer of proceedings and/or to make alternative arrangement of engaging advocate upon transfer of the proceedings and therefore, the petitioners could not take any steps. He submitted that learned advocate had not informed original plaintiffs/appellants about the transfer of proceedings and/or to make alternative arrangement of engaging advocate upon transfer of the proceedings and therefore, the petitioners could not take any steps. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that on appropriate condition, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioners-plaintiffs/appellants may be granted an opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits. 5.1. Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for the respondents opposed the request made by learned advocate for the petitioners. Learned advocate for the respondents submitted that there is inordinate delay of six years in seeking restoration of appeal and the petitioners-plaintiffs/appellants have failed to make out sufficient cause for condoning such long delay. The petitioners have also failed to offer satisfactory explanation except stating that learned advocate had not informed the petitioners-plaintiffs about the developments. Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for the respondents further submitted that if the Court considers it appropriate to grant request of the petitioners and directs the Court to restore the proceedings, then in that event, the learned trial Court may be asked to complete the suit proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 6. In the impugned order dated 22.3.2012, the Court has observed, inter alia, that: "[12] Thus, as discussed above, the applicants have failed to file affidavit of the person who have personal knowledge pertaining to reason mentioned in the application for delay, hence, affidavit filed by the applicant No.1/3 cannot be considered as affidavit in the sense of above statutory provision for the purpose of showing sufficient cause. Moreover, as discussed above there is no meritorious matter in favour of the applicants and therefore in such a situation it can be considered that plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause on affidavit to ask the condonation of delay. Moreover there is no meritorious matter in favour of the applicants and therefore in such circumstances delay cannot be condoned. Hence, my reply to point No.1 in the negative." 6.1. In present case, the petitioners have cited reason of ill health of the original plaintiffs/appellants as one of the reasons on account of which the proceedings of the appeal were not attended. 6.2. Hence, my reply to point No.1 in the negative." 6.1. In present case, the petitioners have cited reason of ill health of the original plaintiffs/appellants as one of the reasons on account of which the proceedings of the appeal were not attended. 6.2. The petitioners have also cited reason that the original plaintiffs and/or present petitioners were not aware that the proceedings were transferred from Godhra to Dahod, they were not informed by the learned advocate who was served with the notice informing that the proceedings of appeal were transferred. In the impugned order, the said aspect does not appear to have been considered. A third reason which the petitioners have cited, is that the learned advocate who was attending the proceedings of the appeal at Godhra, did not attend the hearing of the appeal after it was transferred to Dahod because he ordinarily practices at Godhra and the petitioners are original plaintiffs who were not aware about the fact that the learned advocate did not attend the hearing of the appeal. Another reason mentioned by the petitioners is that the notice intimating transfer of the proceedings was issued and served on the advocate and not the petitioners or the original plaintiffs. 7. On examination of the impugned order, it comes out that on one hand, the learned trial Court has not addressed some of the reasons and circumstances cited by the petitioners for not being able to attend the hearing of the appeal after it was transferred from Godhra to Dahod, whereas on the other hand, the learned trial Court so far as the other submissions (i.e. the submission which are taken into account by the learned trial Court) are concerned, the Court did not consider the same as sufficient cause, however, without recording reasons for such conclusion. 8. From the impugned order, it does not come out as to whether factually the petitioners' submission that the notice intimating transfer of the proceedings was issued to and served on their advocate and not to the appellants/original plaintiffs or to the petitioners, was disproved or it was found to be incorrect. 9. The learned Court does not appear to have held that the said claim is factually incorrect or it is disproved in light of other material on record. 10. 9. The learned Court does not appear to have held that the said claim is factually incorrect or it is disproved in light of other material on record. 10. If the said reason is not incorrect and/or is not successfully assailed and disproved by other side or in light of material on record, then in ordinary circumstances such reason or ground should have been considered sufficient cause to condone delay, more so when the Court instead of issuing notice to the concerned party issued notice only to the advocate. 11. The learned Court has proceeded merely on the premise that any affidavit in support of the application was not filed by the petitioners and according to the learned Court, the expression 'sufficient cause' is not required to be interpreted liberally. On such premise, the learned Court rejected the application seeking condonation of delay. 12. The Court is conscious about the fact that the petitioner's application before the learned first appellate Court (seeking restoration of the appeal which is dismissed for non-prosecution) is hit by and suffers from vice of delay. The Court is also conscious that the delay should not and need not be condoned lightly and casually. The applicant is is expected and obliged to offer satisfactory explanation as regards cause for delay and sufficient cause to support and justify the request to condone delay. Whether the explanation offered by the applicant is 'satisfactory' or not and whether it constitutes 'sufficient cause' or not depends on, and should be construed in light of, the facts and circumstances of the each case and it is not possible to prescribe any thumb-rule or a straight-jacket formula. Whether the explanation offered by the applicant is 'satisfactory' or not and whether it constitutes 'sufficient cause' or not depends on, and should be construed in light of, the facts and circumstances of the each case and it is not possible to prescribe any thumb-rule or a straight-jacket formula. So far as present case is concerned, the petitioners have claimed and asserted that - (a) the appeal proceedings came to be transferred to another place (on bifurcation of District); and (b) the notice about transfer of proceedings were issued/addressed to the advocate and not to the appellants; and (c) the advocate had not informed them about the transfer of proceedings and/or that he would not be attending/would not be able to attend the hearing at other station and they should make alternative arrangement; and (d) it is true that affidavit of advocate is not filed, however, it is also equally true that it is neither denied nor disputed nor disproved nor held to be incorrect by the Court that the notice was addressed to and served on the advocate; and (e) consequently they were not aware about the transfer of the appeal proceedings and were not able to make alternative arrangement by engaging another advocate and they themselves could not attend the hearing. 13. These aspects-more particularly the claim that the notice was issued/addressed to and served on the advocate-are not denied or disproved by anyone. 14. So far as cause for delay in seeking condonation of delay and restoration of proceedings is concerned, the petitioners have relied on the same facts and have urged that as they were not aware about the proceedings and/or orders until the death of their father (appellant) and the facts came to their knowledge only while dealing with the papers and record of property, etc. they could not make the application earlier. 15. It is also relevant that the service of the order dismissing the appeal and the date on which it was served-if at all it was duly served to the appellant-is not established. 16. On the other hand, the explanation by the petitioners are dismissed only on the ground that affidavit by a person having knowledge of facts is not filed. 17. 16. On the other hand, the explanation by the petitioners are dismissed only on the ground that affidavit by a person having knowledge of facts is not filed. 17. In this background, important is the fact that the submissions and assertions on the point of service of notice to the advocate-instead of addressing it to and serving it on the appellant-is not dealt with and is neither disputed nor denied much less disproved. 18. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioners deserve opportunity of hearing on merits and an opportunity of defending/establishing their case/appeal on merits instead of depriving them of such valuable right by dismissing the appeal on ground of non-prosecution and then not granting request for restoration of proceedings. 19. of course, this course cannot be adopted without considering the interest of the respondent and without appropriate compensation. 20. In this view of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the above discussed aspects which do not appear to have been disproved and the said aspects are not held to be incorrect and also in light of the submission that the land in question is the source of livelihood for the petitioners and also in view of the fact that some of the reasons and circumstances cited by the petitioners are not properly and sufficiently addressed and dealt with by the learned Court, it appears that the interest of justice will be served if the request made by the petitioners is granted on appropriate condition. 21. Therefore, below mentioned order is passed. 22. On the condition that the petitioners shall pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards costs as well as for delay to the respondents, the request of the petitioners is accepted. 22.1. On the said condition, the impugned order dated 5.3.2005 is set aside and the learned Court is directed to restore the said Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004 to its original status. 22.2. The learned Court is also directed to issue fresh notices to the contesting parties informing the next date of hearing of Regular Civil Appeal No.28 of 2004. 22.3. The petitioners shall not delay the further proceedings and shall cooperate in early hearing and disposal of the suit proceedings and the learned trial Court shall cooperate in completing the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31.10.2014. 22.4. 22.3. The petitioners shall not delay the further proceedings and shall cooperate in early hearing and disposal of the suit proceedings and the learned trial Court shall cooperate in completing the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 31.10.2014. 22.4. The amount shall be paid by the petitioners within two weeks. 22.5. Only after the petitioners tender receipt acknowledging payment issued by the respondents, before the Registry of the learned Court that the appeal proceedings shall be restored. With the aforesaid clarification, the request is partly granted and the petition is disposed of. Petition allowed.