CRP 107/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked to interfere w ith the order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the learned Munsiff No.4, Kamrup, Guwah ati in Misc. Case No.409/2010 rejecting the application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963(hereinafter for short referred to as the Act) seeking condonation of d elay of 12 days in filing the accompanying application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short hereinafter referred to as the Code). I have heard Mr. A. Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue forma l notice. The petitioners-plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 312/2009 in the Court of the Munsiff No.4, Kamrup, Guwahati. As the petitioner- plaintiffs remained absent without step in the suit on 04.06.2010, it was alongw ith Misc.(J) Case No.499/2009 dismissed. Incidentally, the dismissal was for th e default on the part of the petitioners-plaintiffs for not taking steps on the date fixed. It was thereafter that two applications were filed by the petitione rs-plaintiffs with an endavour to get the suit restored to file. As, meanwhile, a delay of 12 days had occurred, a prayer for condonation thereof was also made in Misc.(J) Case No.2061/2010. According to the petitioners-plaintiffs on the d ate of the dismissal of the suit their learned conducting counsel Mr. Hamidur Ra hman was away to Chennai for medical treatment and that accordingly for want of instructions, steps in the suit were not taken resulting in the dismissal thereo f for non prosecution. While pleading that the restoration of the suit was ind ispensably necessary so as to prevent injustice, the petitioners-plaintiffs prod uced the medical documents relating to the treatment of their counsel, Mr. Hamid ur Rahman. The learned trial Court on a thorough consideration of the averments made in the application being unsatisfied with the cause shown rejected the pra yer for condonation of delay. Mr. Hai with particular reference to the medical documents appended to the insta nt petition has argued that as would be apparent therefrom that on 04.06.2010 an d thereafter till the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code had been sub mitted by the petitioner-plaintiffs, their counsel Mr. Hamidur Rahman was ill an d undertook treatment at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai, the impugned order is pat ently illegal and ought to be interfered with. A bare perusal of the application u/s.5 of the Act referred to hereinabove does not indicate the period during which Mr. Hamidur Rahman was ill and had been un der treatment, so as to render it impossible for him to take steps or cause the same to be taken in the suit, either on 04.06.2010 or thereafter. The medical do cument in the form of discharge summarary (Annexure - 5 to the writ petition) in clear terms indicates the dates of admission and discharge of Mr. Hamidur Rahma n as 09.06.2010 and 21.06.2010 respectively. Even, if the above dates are taken on their face value and considered to be related to the treatment of the aforen amed learned counsel, in the opinion of this Court the same do not constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condon e the delay that had occurred. In this view of the matter, in absence of any ot her material on record, the view taken by the learned trial Court in the impugne d order cannot be faulted with. Though, a cause offered for condonation of dela y ought to be dealt with liberally, it does not signify that each and every expl anation ought to be accepted on mere asking and delay can be condoned on mere sy mpathy and compassion. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order does not, in the opinion of this Court suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant the interference of this C ourt under Article 115 of the CPC. The petition stands rejected. No costs.