CRP 349/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defe ndants. Also heard Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/p laintiff. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ch allenging the order dated 21.05.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Darra ng in Misc (J) Case No. 125/2009 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 4/2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court below dismissed the Misc.(J) Case No. 125/2009 filed for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. The petitioners herein are the defendants in Title Suit No.4/2009. The p laintiff filed the aforesaid Title Suit before the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi praying for a decree of right, title, interest and permanent injuncti on and also for cancellation of mutation etc. On receipt of the notice the pet itioners/defendants appeared before the court below and contested the case by fi ling written statement. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed a mis c. case being Misc.(J) Case No. 2/2009 praying for temporary injunction restrai ning the petitioners/defendants from entering into the suit land and the learned court below in entertaining the aforesaid Misc. case passed an ex-parte interi m order vide order dated 19.02.2009. On 12.05.2009, the case was fixed for filin g objection by the defendants but as the objection could not be filed on the dat e fixed, the Misc. Case was heard on that day itself. By order dated 12.05.2009 the temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff was granted. Being aggri eved by the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2009, the petitioners herein, i.e. defen dants filed a revision petition under Order 43 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure C ode (’CPC’ for short) before this Court. Alongwith the aforesaid revision petiti on, the petitioners have also filed a Misc. case being Misc. Case No. 2407/2009 for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid revision petition. However, vide order dated 16.09.2009 on the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing on b ehalf of the petitioners, this Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the Mis c. case together with the revision petition with a liberty to prefer the appeal before the appropriate forum inasmuch as an appeal would lay before the first ap pellate court against the order dated 12.05.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners/de fendants preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 4/2009 before the learned Di strict Judge, Darrang against the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2009. Alongwith th e appeal a Misc. case being Misc.(J) Case No.125/2009 was also filed for condoni ng the delay in preferring the appeal. The respondent/plaintiff contested the ca se by filing objection on the condonation petition. The learned first appellate court after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record dismis sed the Misc.(J) case No. 125/2009 vide impugned order dated 21.05.2010 holding that- There is lack of cogent ground and satisfactory explanation for causing delay in preferring the appeal. I have perused the impugned order dated 21.05.2010 passed by the learned appellate court. Admittedly a revision petition was filed by the petitioners be fore this Court challenging the order dated 12.05.2009, though an appeal ought t o have been filed. Therefore, this Court, on the prayer made by the petitioners allowed to withdraw the petition with a liberty to file an appeal before appropr iate forum. The petitioners prosecuting a proceedings in good faith by filing re vision petition before this Court, therefore, it caused some delay in filing the appeal before the appropriate authority, i.e. the appellate Court. In that case in computing period of limitation the time taken in the proceedings before this Court has to be excluded as per provision of Section 14(1) of Limitation Act. H owever, upon perusal of the impugned order it would reveal that there is no disc ussion about the period of delay caused due to filing of the revision petition b efore this Court. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from perversity and mat erial irregularities and thus the same is liable to be interfered with under Art icle 227 of the Constitution of India which I hereby do. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2010 is set aside and quashe d. The condonation petition praying for condoning the delay in preferring the ap peal is allowed. Consequently the appeal is restored to its original file. As th e learned counsel on behalf of the parties are present in the Court, they are di rected to appear before the first appellate court on 27.06.2011 to receive furth er order. The revision petition is allowed and disposed of. No cost.