JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The appellant has come up in appeal against the order dated 25.10.2023, passed by the Commercial Court, Dehradun, whereby the restoration application of the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The case made out by the appellant is that the appellant filed a civil suit bearing O.S. No.433 of 2016, against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 79, 89, 983.20, which was pending before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application seeking transfer of the suit to the Commercial Court on the ground that the matter was related to the commercial transaction. Consequently, learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Dehradun), vide order dated 06.07.2023, transferred the said suit to the Commercial Court, Dehradun, and the same was re-numbered as Suit No.130 of 2023. 3. When the matter was listed before the Commercial Court, Dehradun, on 08.09.2023, counsel for the appellant could not appear before the Court due to some personal reasons. On 01.09.2023, the counsel for the appellant met with an accident, and he remained hospitalized for a period of three days, and on 08.09.2023, he visited the doctor for further follow up. When he reached the Court on 08.09.2023, he came to know that the Suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution. On 12.09.2023, counsel for the appellant applied for a certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2023. The certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2023 was notified on the notice board on 04.10.2023, therefore, a period of twenty-two days was to be added in the limitation, and the period of limitation to file the restoration application was extended upto 30.10.2023. On 25.10.2023, counsel for the appellant moved an application for restoration, which was registered as Misc. Case No.163 of 2023, stating therein that the certified copy was applied on 12.09.2023, and the same was notified on the notice board on 04.10.2023. Thus, the appellant was very much entitled to file the restoration application upto 30.10.2023. However, the restoration application was rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Thus, the appellant was very much entitled to file the restoration application upto 30.10.2023. However, the restoration application was rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. A perusal of the above facts further shows that after applying for certified copy of the order dated 08.09.2023, the same was notified on the notice board on 04.10.2023, and for this purpose, twenty-two days had to be added in the limitation, which has not been done in the present case. The delay is of only 17 days, which ought to have been condoned. 5. In view of the above, the present appeal is being allowed, and the order dated 25.10.2023 is being set-aside, and the delay of 17 days in filing the restoration application is condoned, and the order dated 08.09.2023 is also set-aside, and the Suit is being restored to its original number. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.