CRP 78/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. UC Rabha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is made against the order dated 26.1 1.2010 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 30/2010 arising out of Title Appeal No. 31/2 010 which was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation A ct, as the appeal was filed beyond prescribed period of time and the learned App ellate Court rejected the Misc. (J) Case holding that no sufficient cause has be en shown as provided under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently ther eupon the Appeal was also dismissed. 3. A brief facts of the case is summarized herein below: The petitioner herein is the defendant in Title Suit No. 62/08 on the file of th e leaned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Barpeta wherein an ex-parte decree was passed ag ainst him. Consequently thereupon an application was filed under Order IX Rule 1 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (’Code for short) which was also culminated in dismissal. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal being T.A. No. 31/2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Barpeta. Since the appeal was preferre d beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condoning the delay in preferring the Appeal. T he learned Appellate Court after discussing the entire matter in detail dismisse d the condonation petition holding no sufficient cause has been shown for condon ing the delay in preferring the appeal, resultantly Title Appeal was dismissed a gainst which the revision petition has been filed challenging the order as indic ated above. 4. The averments made in the condonation petition as disclosed would reveal that due to his sickness the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and to that effect a medical certificate was enc losed. The learned Appellate Court dealt with the matter extensively with author ity. A mere plea of sickness in itself, unless the effect of the sickness was su ch that in the circumstances it would afford reasonable excuse for the delay in presenting the appeal, would not justify the court in exercising its discretion in admitting the appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act, more so, when the re is lack of reasonable diligence in presenting the appeal as has been held by the learned Appellate Court. Condoning the delay in preferring an appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation is a discretionary matter of the court, b ut where no sufficient cause has been shown, the court has no other option but to dismiss the application keeping in mind the facts that when the prescribed pe riod for preferring the appeal is once passed, a very valuable right is secured to the successful litigant and the court must, therefore, be fully satisfied o f the justice on the ground on which the petitioner seeks to obtain an extensi on of time for attacking the decree and thus, depriving the successful litigant of the advantages which has been obtained in the case at hand as has been righ tly held by the learned lower Appellate Court , the same thus do not require to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. There is no infirmity in passing the order under challenge. Accordingly, the revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit requiring interference under the revisional jurisdiction and hence, the revision petition is dismissed . No costs.