CRP 367/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. D.C. K. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge laid in the instant petition is against the order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Misc. Appeal No.16/2009, thereby, condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In Title Suit No.203/2006 instituted by one Moinuddin in the Court of thethen Mu nsiff No.2, Nagaon, the present opposite party filed an application under Orde r XXII, Rule 3 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter for short referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 thereof seeking their substitution in pl ace of the original plaintiff named hereinabove who had expired meanwhile. As t his application was barred by time, another petition under Section 5 of the Limi tation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay and for setting aside the abetment was file. The parties were heard by the learned Court below on 14.08.2009 and 16.0 9.2009 was fixed for orders. According to the opposite party, no such order was passed on 16.09.2009 and ther eafter till 24.09.2009, whereafter, the Court remained closed for Puja Vacation till 18.10.2009. It was on 20.10.2009 that it appeared in the cause list of the Court below that the application had been dismissed and consequentially the suit as well. According to the opposite party, when approached the concerned Bench Assistant failed to produce the record of the order passed by the learned court below and situated thus a certified copy thereof was applied for on 31.10.2009. On receiving the certified copy on the very same date, they approached their le arned Advocate and eventually the appeal was filed. As the same was beyond time , an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was filed for condo nation of delay citing the above circumstances. The opposite party contended th at the delay was for about 15/16 days in filing the appeal. Resisting the said prayer, the present petitioner in his written objection dispu ted the correctness of the statements made by the opposite party and asserted th at as fixed, order was passed by the learned Court below on 16.09.2009 and that the delay in filing the appeal had ensued due to inexplicable negligence and lac hes on the part of the opposite party. In support of the averments for condonat ion of delay, Mr. H.P. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite party examined h imself before the lower appellate Court. By the impugned order the delay has bee n condoned. Mr. Hazarika has emphatically argued that not only the averments made in the ap plication for condonation of delay are factually incorrect, it is a mala fide mo ve on the part of the opposite party and tantamounts to an attempt to abuse the process of the Court. He has reiterated that the order was passed by the learne d trial Court on 16.09.2009 and the delay being wholly on account of negligence of the opposite party, the learned lower appellate Court was wrong in condoning the same. I have extended my consideration to the submissions made. A bare perusasl of th e application for condonation of delay filed before the learned lower appellate court demonstrates that the lapses contributing to the delayed information have been ascribed solely to the Bench Assistant of the trial Court. Their categorica l statement is that though approached the concerned Bench Assistant informed the m that no order had been passed from 16.09.2009 till 24.09.2009 and it was only from the cause list dated 20.10.2009 that they came to learn of the disposal of the suit. According to them, the records of the suit as well as the order passe d were not made available to the them, for which they being without any alternat ive had to apply for a certified copy of the order on 31.10.2009. The impugned o rder discloses that the stand of the opposite party was amply substantiated by t he testimony of Shri H.P. Saikia, their learned counsel on oath. In the above view of the matter, though the learned counsel for the petitioner h as strenuously insisted that the stand of the opposite party and also their lear ned counsel is against the weight of the materials on record and thus ought to b e disapproved, on being queried by this Court, he could not disclose steps, if any taken against them before the appropriate forum for such an incorrect and fr ivolous plea taken. Be that as it may, as indicated hereinabove, the alleged omission having been li mited to only the Bench Assistant of the Court, it would be incorrect to proceed on the premise that thereby the opposite party had even endeavoured, to fault the Court for the delay. In other words, the averments made in the application filed by the opposite party seeking to explain the delay, are not directed towar ds the Court. I leave it at that. The learned lower appellate Court, as the impugned judgment and order would reve al exercised its judicial discretion and condoned the delay on a threadbare scru tiny of the relevant facts. As condonation of delay is an equitable relief and t he normal trend is that the cause shown to explain the same is liberally constru ed, the facts and circumstances narrated by the opposite party to offer an expla nation for the delay in the opinion of this Court could not have been brushed as ide as wholly unwarranted and flippant for want of genuineness or bona fide. Th is Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction does not consider it nec essary to interfere with the impugned order. This petition lacks in merit and is rejected. No costs.