ORDER : 1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: “6(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 02.11.2020 passed by Ld. 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in Civil Misc. Application No. 1356 of 2007 and order dated 23.08.2007 passed by 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge in Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 1988 and be pleased to restore the Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 1988 to its original place in the interest of justice and oblige. (B) xxx xxx xxx” 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah for respondent no. 4 and learned advocate Mr. Vimal Patel for respondent no. 6. Respondent nos. 1 and 7 have been deleted as they have expired during the pendency of the petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Asthawadi has drawn my attention towards the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed for restoration of the suit and submitted that no prejudice will be caused if the application is granted as sufficient cause is made out for restoration of the said suit. He submitted that the learned trial Court has taken hyper technical approach by considering various aspects of the matter but without properly giving the reasons for rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC which is essentially filed for restoration of the suit. He further submitted that the reasons given in the impugned order are not applicable and not required to be given as the application was for restoration of the main suit only. 3.1 Learned advocate has further submitted that some of the parties have expired during the pendency of the proceeding and proper action is taken qua those parties at the relevant point of time and also now in the present petition. It is submitted that though it is stated that petitioner no. 2-Ilaben Kantilal Modi has expired in the year 1992, but she has applied for impleadment as party in the year 2008 and the said fact is clarified in the year 2008 and therefore the same may not be considered while considering the present petition. It is submitted that though it is stated that petitioner no. 2-Ilaben Kantilal Modi has expired in the year 1992, but she has applied for impleadment as party in the year 2008 and the said fact is clarified in the year 2008 and therefore the same may not be considered while considering the present petition. He, therefore, resorting to provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC, submits that this court may interfere with the impugned order by allowing this petition by exercising powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 3.2 Learned advocate further submitted that while issuing notice, this Court has ordered for deposit of Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost of litigation, which is deposited and is lying with the Registry of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondents had strongly objected the submissions made at the bar and the prayers prayed for in this petition. He has drawn the attention towards the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 6-Pravinbhai Patel wherein the entire chronology of events is narrated and looking to such chronology, the conduct of the present petitioners is required to be considered. He has further submitted that the application is filed before this Court after much delay of more than three years and four months. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order on 2.11.2010 and the present petition is filed in the month of March, 2014 which itself shows the conduct of the petitioner. Any proceeding which is required to be filed before the learned trial court for restoration is required to be filed within thirty days in view of the Article 122 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, it is filed beyond that period, that too, without filing any application for separate condonation of delay. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order which is passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper, with proper reasons and the Court has also dealt with the other aspects of the matter while deciding the application which is required in the peculiar facts of the present case and therefore no interference is called for as the court has rightly passed the order after considering the provisions of Order 9 Rule 3 in proper context and more particularly, considering the conduct of the petitioners and therefore, he prays to dismiss this petition. 5. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah for respondent no. 4 has adopted the arguments and also supported the submissions made by the learned advocate Mr. Patel and has prayed to dismiss this petition as no cause is made out for interference and even before the learned trial court, no proper cause is made out. 6. Considering the impugned order, the rival submissions made at the bar and perusing the material placed on record, it transpires that the Court has framed the points for determination by considering the application which is filed at Exh.31 in C.M.A. No. 1356 of 2007. The contentions of the parties are dealt with in detail. The court has considered the submissions made by the applicant that the applicants have filed Special Civil Suit No. 158 of 1988 against the present opponent for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property and all the proceedings are conducted by the deceased Chitranjan Kantilal Modi who has expired on 30.4.2006 and the present applicant is impleaded as party on 27.9.2006. After the death of deceased Chintranjan Kantilal Modi, the responsibility of the applicant no. 1/1 for maintaining applicant no. 1/2 and 1/3 and nephew of the deceased Chintranjan Modi has started industry and due to financial necessity, the house of Shantiniketan situated on Kalavad road, Rajkot was given under additional security and transaction of deceased’s nephew with bank has not been maintained regularly and house was sealed and applicants came on the road and therefore due to these circumstances, the health of the deceased Chitranjan Modi deteriorated severely and after a long illness, he expired and the court has abated the suit against defendant no. 1 on 28.2.2006 and thereafter they tried to challenge that order before this Court by taking appropriate advice and thereafter, as the application was dismissed on 28.3.2007 and suit was also dismissed on the ground of absence. Thereafter, they have prayed for restoration of the application which was opposed by the present contesting respondents and the learned trial court has also decided the application in very hyper technical manner by considering various aspects of the matter without properly considering the fact that whether there is specific cause of action involved in the matter or not. This contention of the petitioners is required to be considered by perusing the impugned order. 7. This contention of the petitioners is required to be considered by perusing the impugned order. 7. The Court has specifically dealt with all these relevant aspects and while going through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the present respondent, it transpires that the respondent has given the entire chronology which is of the entire litigation which clearly indicates that the present petitioners have remained negligent and are deliberately delaying the proceeding by not pursuing the proceeding. It transpires that the further proceedings are initiated by third party by filing Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2013 for the same premises which certainly jeopardize the rights of the parties and it also transpires that it also leads to multiplicity of proceedings with an intention to delay the outcome of the litigation which is already pending between the same parties. It also transpires from the affidavit filed and also from the other material produced on the record that the third party equities are also created during the pendency of the proceeding before the learned trial Court as well as this Court. 8. Therefore, considering all these aspects and considering the fact that the learned trial Court, while deciding the application, though has gone into the various aspects of the matter but has also dealt with the crux of the matter i.e. prayer of the application in paragraph 9 by saying that the applicants have not shown any sufficient cause for not remaining present at the time of evidence of the applicant on the date fixed and no satisfactory or reliable evidence is produced by the applicant to show that they are restrained from appearing on that particular date. The court has also found that no documentary evidence is produced to show that there is medical treatment going on of Chintranjan Modi or any other convincing material available on the record to support the claim that the plaintiff is not a position to attend the proceeding on the particular date due to genuine cause which can be considered as a sufficient cause. 9. 9. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC reproduced as under: “Order 9 Rule 8: Procedure where defendant only appears - Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder. Order 9 Rule 9: Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit: (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” 10. Considering the findings given by the learned trial court and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the matter and the fact that even the present petition is filed after huge delay of more than three years, I am of the view that no relief can be granted by exercising powers under Article 227 as no reason is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court which is otherwise in accordance with law and no infirmity or illegality is committed by the learned trial court while passing the impugned order. 11. 11. At this stage, it is required to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 , more particularly, paragraph nos. 15 to 17 therein, where it was held that High Courts while exercising powers under Article 227 does not act as appellate authority and cannot re-appreciate evidence and the jurisdiction exercised under Article 227 is in nature of correctional jurisdiction to set aside grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of process of law and High Court cannot substitute its own view on merits. 12. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Notice/Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 13. Considering the fact that the cost is already deposited of Rs. 25,000/- pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court dated 10.7.2014 and considering nature of litigation, The Registry is directed to transfer the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- along with the interest, if any, accrued on it, to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within seven days from the date of receipt of this order.