Order 1. Instant Civil Restoration Application is preferred by appellant-applicant to restore S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 334/2013 which was dismissed on 03.05.2023 in pursuant to order dated 17.04.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 2. Office has pointed out a delay of 594 days in filing the instant restoration application. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is filed for condonation of dealy in filing restoration of appeal on ground that the appellant-applicant has filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent before the Trial Court and same was decreed but later First Appellate Court has reversed the findings. He further submits that the appellants-applicants were not aware about the order passed by this Court on 17.04.2023 which resulted into dismissal of second appeal. He further submits that this is a case filed by landlord and in case matter is not restored then the appellant-landlord have to face serious repercussions as the judgment would operate as res judicata. He also submits that appellant-applicant has obtained decree from the Trial Court but due to erroneous approach of the Appellate Court, the decree was reversed. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicant and perused the entire material placed on record. 4. A civil suit for eviction was filed by plaintiff Ramdev Sharma for eviction and arrears of rent. His legal heirs (all four females) were substituted, during pendency of civil suit after his death. The suit was filed on the ground of default, alternative accommodation, bona fide and reasonable need and dilapidated condition of house. Learned Trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction and also for arrears of rent and First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of defendants-tenants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved from the reversal of findings, a second appeal was preferred by appellant-landlord, in year 2013. 5. It appears that the counsel for appellant remained absent on 17.04.2023. Mr. Ravikant Sharma was counsel for appellants and due to negligence adopted by the counsel for appellant in filing notices resulted into dismissal of this appeal on 03.05.2023. A perusal clearly indicate that the defendants were not served as the summon were returned with the report that the defendants were out of station. Thereafter, notices were not issued by the Office. 6. A perusal clearly indicate that the defendants were not served as the summon were returned with the report that the defendants were out of station. Thereafter, notices were not issued by the Office. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case, I am of firm view that there has to be a system whereby the litigant is required to be informed about outcome of the case on daily basis. The e- Committee has proposed information by delivering SMS, as soon as the proceeding of the case is over on scheduled date but despite efforts by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, we were not able to persuade the counsels to share and inform about mobile number and e-mail-ids of the litigants so that he/she may be directly communicated by system through automated SMS. Herein, we are also at fault and still we are In-Charge of helm of affairs, particularly not able to inculcate discipline for proper use of information technology for end user (litigant). We have to introduce a system like KYL (know Your Litgant) in line as that of KYC, adopted by banks to update our database. 7. Having considered the plight of litigants who are unaware about his or her case and same was dismissed only on account that the counsel has neither appeared nor filed PF-notices for re- issue of summon. On earlier occasion, a managed report came on record with unserved notices. Looking to the fault of the system an urgent intervention is required and for that purpose the only option is to place the suggestion before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court. 8. Herein, there is a delay of 594 days in filing the restoration application. The respondents were not present on date of dismissal of second appeal, therefore, it is not necessary to serve upon them to consider this restoration application. The proceedings indicate that during pendency of 10 years before dismissal, notices were served upon respondents. 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act prescribes that any appeal or revision or an application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the petitioner satisfies the Court on sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or revision or making an application within prescribed period. 10. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. 9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act prescribes that any appeal or revision or an application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the petitioner satisfies the Court on sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or revision or making an application within prescribed period. 10. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji AIR 1987 SC 1353 , Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles to allow application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay. every seconds delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 11. Recently, condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Subba Reddy (died) by LRs. And Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 wherein also it was held that unless sufficient cause is shown the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be allowed. 11. Recently, condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Subba Reddy (died) by LRs. And Ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 wherein also it was held that unless sufficient cause is shown the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act cannot be allowed. The underlying provisions after harmonious construction of provision of law were formulated in following manner:- (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the L imitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision. 12. 12. Having considered the principle of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and herein it is a case where the appellants are females and there is no system to inform them about dismissal of the case in default/non-compliance to file PF- notices. When a system is thoroughly unprofessional and suffering from red-tapism, we cannot presume that the appellants- applicants were responsible for delay in filing the instant restoration application, in a 10 year old case where after initial return of notices, new notices were not filed on time. Herein, this case as per submission, the applicants have to engage a counsel to file restoration application, therefore, looking to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case as submitted by oral arguments and also mentioned hereinabove, it is appropriate to allow application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 13. Having considered the submission, it has come to our notice that the counsel has filed fresh PF-notices so that time may not be consumed in case restoration application is allowed. Considering the grounds as submitted by the counsel and also mentioned in application the restoration application is liable to be allowed. 14. In view of aforesaid, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby allowed and delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The restoration application is also allowed and S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 334/2013 is restored to Board. 15. Instant restoration application is disposed of. 16. Office is directed to re-register the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 334/2013 and place this matter before appropriate roster after two weeks. 17. A copy of the order may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court through the Registrar General of this Court.