CRP 153/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In assailment is the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Misc. (J) Case No. 26/2010 arising out of Title Appeal No. 27 /2010 thereby declining to condone the delay of about 10 months in filing the ac companying appeal as above. I have heard Mr AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to iss ue formal notice to the opposite party. The records reveal that the opposite party had instituted Title Suit No. 302/2007 in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Barpeta impleading the prese nt petitioner as a defendant and seeking a decree for declaration of joint right , title and interest over the suit land as described in the schedule to the plai nt. A decree for partition and delivery of possession was also sought for. After a full dress trial, the suit was decreed on 8.9.2009. According to the petitioner, he is presently aged above 60 years and is suffering from various ailments. In view of the above illness and the shock that he suffered from the decree that was passed, he could not immediately attend to the aspect of appeal against the same. As his ailments aggravated he was taken to the doctor by his family members. The doctor treated him for Gastric Ulcer an d occasional attacks of gastritis with vomiting. He was also diagnosed to be suf fering from Low Blood Pressure. After taking medical treatment from 10.9.2009 to 18.6.2010 he having felt a little better physically turned his attention to the appeal. He then applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order as wel l as the decree on 19.6.2010 which was delivered to him on 30.6.2010. After coll ecting the Court Fee he eventually filed the appeal. By that time a delay of ove r ten months had occurred. The application for condonation of delay was analyzed by the learned Cou rt below and on a consideration inter alia of the medical certificate in support of his assertion of illness and the averments made by him therein, it came to t he conclusion that he had failed to show sufficient cause. In reaching that conc lusion, the learned Court below inter alia noticed that though the medical certi ficate disclosed that he had been suffering from the aforementioned ailments, th e attending doctor had not advised him bed rest. According to the learned Court below, therefore, though ill, the petitioner was not in a disabled state to be p revented from taking any step for filing the appeal in time. In this premise, it was held that the petitioner had failed to offer sufficient cause within the me aning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to be entitled to the equitable r elief of condonation of delay of 10 months. The application was rejected and so was the accompanying appeal as a consequence thereof. Mr Sikdar has urged that as the medical certificate enclosed to the appl ication for condonation of delay in clear terms proves that the petitioner had b een prevented by sufficient cause from taking steps to prefer the appeal in time , considering his age and frail state of health, the learned Court below ought t o have granted the relief as sought for. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a considerati on of the materials on record which include the application for condonation of d elay as well as the accompanying medical certificate, this Court is of the view that in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civ il Procedure Code there is no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Court below. The conclusions recorded in the impugned order by no me ans can be said to be implausible or illogical warranting interference of this C ourt under its superintending jurisdiction enshrined by Article 227 of the Const itution of India as well. In the above view of the matter, the petition lacks in merit and is dism issed. No costs.