CRP 289/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.06.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, in Misc. (J) Case No. 06/2010 whereby the learn ed Civil Judge has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to condone the delay i n filing the appeal. In other words, the appellate court has dismissed of the ap plication filed by the applicants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condoning the delay of 12 days. Heard Shri A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A .R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the court should be liberal in entertaining the application under Section 5 of the L imitation Act and the discretion should be exercised to advance the cause of jus tice and not to defeat the same. On the other hand, Shri Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondents subm itted that while examining the application for condonation of delay, the court s hould also examine the conduct and bona fide of the application. In support of h is contention, the learned counsel for the respondents cited a judgment of the H on’ble Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari and ors (AIR 1969 SC 575) as well as another judgment of this Court in the State of Assam Vs. Gob inda Chandra Paul (AIR 1991 Gauhati 104). There can be no dispute that the court should be liberal in condoning th e delay provided the delay has been explained satisfactorily. In other words, th e court should be pragmatic and not dogmatic. It has also been held by the Apex Court that the merit of the case should also be taken into consideration while a ccepting or rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the case before me, the application has been rejected solely on the gr ound that the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner was defective. I have perused the medical certificate wherein it has been stated that t he petitioner was examined by the doctor on 18.02.2010 and at the same time it h as been certified that the petitioner was suffering from Malaria with effect fro m 20.02.2010 to 09.03.2010. According to the learned counsel, if the petitioner was actually suffering from Malaria from 20.02.2010, he could not have examined by the doctor on 18.02.2010. In my considered opinion, there is no bar for medical examination one or two days earlier to formal treatment. If the petitioner had actually developed the symptom of Malaria, he might have gone to doctor on 18.02.2010. This aspect can be examined only if the petitioner/ appellant gives additional evidence eith er documentary or oral. In the result, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner/ appella nt to give additional evidence in support of his prayer and decide the matter af resh. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stand s disposed of.