CRP 461/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition filed is an o rder dated 5.7.2010 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 19/2009. By the aforesaid order the learned trial judge condoned the delay in filing the connected application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting a side the ex-parte decree passed on 31.3.2007 in Money Suit No. 12/2003. The aforesaid Money Suit No. 12/2003 was instituted praying that the de fendants/respondents are not entitled to any dues on account of supply of electr icity to the plaintiff/petitioner upto 9.3.2003 and the amount was earlier reali sed in excess by the defendants., that the defendants are not entitled to discon tinue the power supply to the plaintiff/petitioner for non payment of the relate d bill and for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 31.3.2007 for default. After coming to know about the said dismissal the defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-part e decree passed in the suit. The plaintiff/petitioner contested the suit by fili ng written objection. The learned trial court after consideration of the averments made in thi s application for setting aside the ex-parte decree as well as the objection rai sed by the plaintiff/petitioner came to a finding that the defendants have not b een able to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay for setting aside the ex-parte decree and on such consideration passed the impugned order setting asi de the order condoning the delay in filing the application vide impugned order d ated 31.3.2007. Mr. N. Chakrborty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant s have not been able to show sufficient causes for condonation of the delay and accordingly the learned trial court has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned ord er. The said submission has been stiffly resisted by Mr. Goswami. Perused the application filed under S. 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condo ning the delay as well as the objection so filed thereon. From the perusal of the averments made in the petition, I find that the petition er has made specific statements acceptance of which would disclose sufficient ca use for condoning the delay but the learned trial court has accepted the said st atements and it was open for the trial court either to accept such statements or to reject the same upon perusal of the averments made in the petition and upon hearing the learned counsels. Admittedly the learned trial court has the jurisdi ction either to condone or reject the prayer for condoning the delay and this Co urt being the revisional Court its jurisdiction is very much limited and it is n ot entitled to re-appreciate the facts in the absence of any perver sity and no failure of justice has been pointed out before me and accordingly th is revision petition fails and it stands rejected. It submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that a direction may be passed for acceptance or dismissal of the suit. The prayer made by Mr. Chakraborty is reasonable inasmuc h as the suit is pending since 2003 and Mr. Goswami has not objected the same an d it is directed that the learned trial court shall dispose of the suit as exped itiously as possible. Both the parties shall co-operate for disposal of the suit by the learned trial court.