IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF_CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. f'a> ^ /2010 IRCS'S APPLICANT Defendant/ Respondep(t^ •s..;' y.-^ .-c isaW6"' NON-APPLICANT Plaintiff/Appellant Umrav Singh Verma S/o Bhulau Singh Verma, aged about 73 years, R/o village: Amora, Tahsil 85 Police Station - Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS Ganesh Lal .Sharma S/o Late Shri Ram Pra.ta{j Sharma, aged about 52 years, R/o Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL a r 'f7~'"" •B-—P mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Cwil Revision No. 107/2010 APPLICANT Unu-av Singh Verma RESPONDENT Ganesh Lal Sharma Appearance: Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, counsel for the applicant. CrVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 ORAL ORDER (8.10.2010) Heard. (2) Challenge in this revision has been thrown to the order passed by the first appellate court allowmg the respondent's application under section 5 ofthe Limitation Act to condone the delay of40 days in filing the first appeal. (3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the absence ofany proofregarding the respoadent'sjoumey to Rajasthan and the medical certificate^ in support of his ailment, learned court below shou!d not have accepted the statement made by the respondent in the application for condonation of delay. Counsel for the applicant relies on DevUal Vs. Kantabai 2000 (II) M.P. Weeldy Notes 84. (4) On perusal ofthe order, it appears that the court has recorded a finding that on the date of judgment passed by the trial court the r -2 respondent was not present nor the signature of the counsel is available on the order sheet of the date on which the judgment was delivered. On this finding the court below has concluded that it may be possible that the counsel has not informed the respoiident about the judgment and that even if the railway ticket and medica} certificate is not submitted, the statement made in the application explaining the delay supported with an afEdavit deserves to be bonafide and that even otherwise the delay is not enonnous. ^5) In the matter of CoUector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst Katiji and others (1987) 2 SCC 107 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while construing the word 'sufGcient cause' occurring in section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court should be liberal and that a justice oriented approach should be adopted by the courts in its endeavour to impart substancial justice by examining the dispute on merits. (6) In view of the above, this court is unable to agree with the submission made by the leamed counsel for the applicant. The court below has not committed any material irregularity in allowing the application under section 5 ofthe Limitation Act. (7) The instant revision has no force, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra