CRP 102/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, who are the defendants in Title Suit No.71/1995 by the present petition have challenged the order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the learn ed District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No.2/2006 allowing the appeal by se tting aside the order dated 8th September, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judg e (Sr. Division), Karimganj (now Civil Judge) in Title Suit No.71/1995 rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay of 2 (two) days in filing the appl ication for substitution of the legal heirs of the plaintiff as well as for sett ing aside abetment. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that though the predecessor-in-interests of the present respondents, who was the pla intiff in Title Suit No.71/1995 died on 30th December, 1999 and an application f or substitution as well as for setting aside abetment was filed on 30th March, 2 000, no application seeking condonation of delay was filed though such applicati on was barred by 2 (two) days. According to the learned counsel, such applicati on seeking condonation of delay was filed on 16th March, 2005, which was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court and as such, the same ought not to have bee n set aside by the learned Appellate Court, as has been done by the impugned ord er dated 23rd December, 2010. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit of the plaintiff as such is barred by the law of limitation and the pleadings in the plaint do not disclose any cause of actio n. Mr. Dhar further submits that though the suit was instituted in the year 199 5, the issues are yet to be framed. It appears from the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the learn ed District Judge in Title Appeal No.2/2006 (which ought to have been registered as Misc. Appeal) that the learned Trial Court refused to condone the delay of 2 (two) days basically on the ground of filing the application seeking condonatio n of delay after almost 5 (five) years from the date of filing the application s eeking substitution. The learned District Judge by the impugned order has, howe ver, set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and condoned the dela y in filing the application seeking substitution and for setting aside abetment. The substitution application consequently was also allowed by setting aside th e abetment. It appears from the order passed by the learned District Judge that though the a pplication seeking condonation of delay was filed after 5 (five) years of filing the application seeking substitution and setting aside abetment, the applicants were not negligent in approaching the Court seeking condonation of delay, which is only for 2 (two) days. In view of the above, I do not consider it to be a fit case to invoke the jurisd iction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impu gned order dated 23rd December, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge and he nce, the revision petition is dismissed. It appears that the suit is pending since the year 1995 and according to the lea rned counsel for the petitioners, the issues are even not framed. That being the position, I direct the learned Trial Court to decide the suit wit hin a period of 1 (one) year from today. While framing the issues, the learned Trial Court shall bear in mind the contention of the petitioners that the pleadi ngs does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by time. The revision petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.