- (1.)The petitioner in all these petitions are original plaintiff before the trial Court and First Appellate Court, whereas respondent in all these petitions are original defendant and opponent. Since all these petitions are on same facts and circumstances and for common issue regarding non -condonation of delay by impugned judgment in filing the Regular Civil Appeal before the District Court, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)The petitioner in all such petitions have filed R.C.S. Nos.469 of 2005, 470 of 2005, 471 of 2005 and 472 of 2005 before the Civil Court at Rajkot to get the possession of the suit property, contending that he has purchased all the suit property, but, thereafter, since has to leave the City of Rajkot for staying at his hometown in Surendranagar District, in his absence, defendant has trespassed in the suit property and occupied it illegally. Such suits were dismissed by order dated 30.6.2012 by the 5th Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajkot mainly on the ground that though sufficient opportunity was given, the plaintiff has failed to adduce oral or documentary evidence and also failed to examine any witness and even on the date of argument, learned advocate for the plaintiff has remained absent. Therefore, though suit is dismissed by final order after framing the issue, prima facie, it becomes clear that the dismissal of the suit is purely on technical ground. i.e. absence of the plaintiff and his advocate and thereby, practically, the suits were dismissed for want of prosecution - ex -parte.
(3.)Thereafter, the petitioners have filed Civil Misc.Applications Nos.49 of 2015, 47 of 2014, 50 of 2014 and 48 of 2014. before the District Court at Rajkot on 29.1.2014 to condone the delay of more than 500 days in filing Regular Civil Appeal against the dismissal of their suits. Such applications u/s.5 of the Limitation Act has also been dismissed by the 4th Addl.District Judge of Rajkot by impugned judgment dated 31.12.2014 and hence, the present petition.