JUDGMENT : ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers: “(a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.7.2020 passed by the Court No. 10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 323 of 2013 preferred in Civil Suit No. 4035 of 1998; (b) Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the respondents may kindly be directed to maintain status quo in respect of suit property.” 2. The brief facts for the case are that the petitioners – original plaintiffs, on 6.8.1998, instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 4035 of 1998 against the predecessor of the respondents i.e. Dashratlal Keshavlal Shah, seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. That subsequently, the lower Court granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioners in respect of the suit property and thereafter, the suit was sent to the regular hearing board and hence, no further dates for hearing of the suit was given to the petitioners. That, the predecessor of the respondents, in the year 2001, instituted a P.S.R.P Suit viz. 9 of 2006 before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad seeking possession of the suit property from the petitioners. That, the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad on 31.3.2006, allowed the P.S.R.P. Suit and directed the petitioners to hand over the possession of the suit property to the predecessor of the respondents. That, the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, preferred a Revision Application viz. Civil Revision Application No. 175 of 2006 before this Court and this Court admitted the matter and stayed the operation and execution of the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. That, the predecessor of the Respondents- original defendant i.e. Dashratlal keshavlal Shah passed away on 13.10.2011. That, on 16.6.2012, the advocate of the respondents in Civil Revision Application No. 175 of 2006 declared for the first time before this Court that Shri Dashratlal Keshavlal Shah had passed away and thereby, the said Civil Revision Application came to be dismissed as having been abated. That, on 16.6.2012, the advocate of the respondents in Civil Revision Application No. 175 of 2006 declared for the first time before this Court that Shri Dashratlal Keshavlal Shah had passed away and thereby, the said Civil Revision Application came to be dismissed as having been abated. It is further contended in the petition that, thereafter, the petitioners immediately preferred an application for setting aside abatement and also for condonation of delay caused in bringing legal heirs of the respondent on record. That, this court on 24.7.2012, allowed the application and thereby the present respondents came to be joined as parties in the Civil Revision Application No.175 of 2006. That, the petitioners also simultaneously sought to join the heirs of the deceased respondent in the suit before the lower Court and with the said objective, the petitioners had contacted their local advocate for taking appropriate steps in the suit, however, the local advocate had informed the petitioners that as the suit was lying dormant and was not being posted on board at the relevant time, application for joining heirs would be required to be filed only when the suit is posted on the board of the lower Court for trial. That, the impression given by the local advocate, the present petitioners waited for the suit to come up on board and for their local advocate to intimate about the same. That, the petitioners on 22.3.2013, immediately preferred an application viz. Civil Misc. Application No. 323 of 2013, for restoration of the suit by setting aside abatement and further prayed for condonation of delay of 120 days caused in bringing the legal heirs of the deceased respondent on record before the lower Court. That, the respondent on 12.6.2013, replied to the aforementioned application and subsequently, the petitioners made a further rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents. That, the lower Court after hearing the parties and without considering the contentions of the petitioners herein and the documents produced on record, passed an impugned order dated 23.7.2020, rejecting the application for setting aside abatement and condoning the delay of 120 days caused in bringing the legal heirs of the deceased respondent on record. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. N.V Gandhi for the respondents. 4. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi waives service of rule for the respondents. 5. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. N.V Gandhi for the respondents. 4. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi waives service of rule for the respondents. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily and vehemently submitted that in the present case, the predecessor of the respondents – original defendants viz. Dashratlal K. Shah passed away on 13.10.2011. He further submitted that on 16.6.2012, the advocate of the respondent in Civil Revision Application No. 175 of 2006, declared for the first time that Shri Dashratlal Keshavlal Shah had passed away and thereby, the said Civil Revision Application came to be dismissed as having been abated. He also argued that thereafter, immediately preferred an application or setting aside abatement and also for condonation of delay caused in bringing legal heirs of the respondent on record and subsequently, on 24.7.2012, this Court allowed the application and thereby, the present respondents came to be joined as parties in the Civil Revision Application No. 175 of 2006. It is further contended that simultaneously, the petitioners sought to join the heirs of the deceased respondent in the suit before the lower Court. He also contended that the petitioners contacted the local advocate for taking appropriate steps in the suit but he informed the petitioners that the suit was lying dormant and was not being posted on board at the relevant time. 5.1 learned advocate for the petitioners argued that the application for joining heirs would be required to be filed only when the suit is posted on board of the lower Court for trial. It is further contended that in view of the aforesaid impression given by the local advocate, the present petitioners waited for the suit to come up on board and for their local advocate to intimate about the same. It is also contended that subsequently, on 23.10.2012, the suit came to be dismissed as having been abated, however the local advocate failed to inform the petitioners regarding passing of the aforementioned order and thereby kept the petitioners in dark. It is contended that the petitioners through another advocate, made inquires before the lower Court on 15.3.2013 regarding the status of the suit, and at that time, the petitioners were informed regarding dismissal of the suit on account of its abatement. It is contended that on 22.3.2013, the petitioners immediately preferred an application viz. Civil Misc. It is contended that the petitioners through another advocate, made inquires before the lower Court on 15.3.2013 regarding the status of the suit, and at that time, the petitioners were informed regarding dismissal of the suit on account of its abatement. It is contended that on 22.3.2013, the petitioners immediately preferred an application viz. Civil Misc. Application No. 323 of 2013 for restoration of the suit by setting aside abatement and further prayed for condonation of delay of 120 days caused in filing the application for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased – respondent on record before the lower Court but the same was disallowed and therefore, the present petition. 5.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwari Lal Vs. Balbir Singh reported in 2016(1) Supreme Court Cases 607, wherein, appeal was dismissed on the ground that no steps were taken to bring on record his legal representatives, even though applications for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay had been filed prior to the dismissal. In the present case the regular advocate has not informed about the dismissal of the suit, and subsequently, filed the delay application to set aside the abatment and therefore, 120 days delay in view of the judgment of the hon’ble Supreme Court may kindly be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi for the respondents has vehemently and fervently argued in the present case that, sufficient time was assigned to the present petitioners but no steps were taken by them to bring the heirs and legal representative of the deceased Dashrathlal on record to continue the proceeding. It is stated on oath that the petitioners have full knowledge about the death of Dashrathlal and merely within 3 weeks from death of Dashrathlal present petitioners sent a “legal notice” to the society through their senior advocate Shri Kamal Desai to the effect that no change be made in the record of the society with regard to the suit property, but no steps were taken within 90 days by the petitioners to bring legal representative of deceased Dashrathlal on record to continue the proceeding. It is further contended that no application was made within 60 days for setting aside the abatement. 7. It is further contended that no application was made within 60 days for setting aside the abatement. 7. This Court has gone through the averments made in the petition and also considered the contentions raised by both the sides and also perused the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents and perused the impugned order dated 23.7.2020 passed by the Court No. 10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. This Court is of the opinion that in the case of Banwari Lal Vs. Balbir Singh (Supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that by referring the Sital Prasad Saxena Vs. Union of India reported in (1985) 1 SCC 163 , that Rules of procedure under Order – 22 of the Civil Procedure Code are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted as not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties and on sufficient cause, delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased party on record should be condoned. The procedure is meant only to facilitate the administration of justice and not to defeat the administration of justice and hence, it would be just and proper to decide every matter on its own merits rather than on mere technicalities. Further, in the present case, learned advocate fails to inform the petitioners about the status of the suit and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that as per the settled law, due to the negligence of the learned advocate, the litigating party is not required to suffer. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order dated 23.7.2020 passed by the Court No. 10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 323 of 2013 in Civil Suit No. 4035 of 1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.