MC 595/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed by the pl aintiff to condone 637 days delay in challenging the order dated 16.05.2007, pas sed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 101 of 1996. By this impugned order, the trial Court has returned the plaint to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for want of jurisdiction. 2. Heard Sri S P Roy, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant as well as Sri S R Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/def endants. 3. The applicant’s case is that he could not file the appeal within time since the applicant was suffering from diabetes, heart-blockage, glaucoma, hypertension, brain haemorrhage etc.. It is also the case of the applicant that during this period, he also sustained minor heart attack. The applicant has ann exed the certificates and documents of his treatments at various hospitals at Gu wahati, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, since the ap plicant was the Managing Director of the Company, he could not take steps for fi ling appeal within the statutory period. 5. On the other hand, the respondents’ case is that the applicant w as looking after his business. During these two years period, he had signed vari ous documents, as required under the Company Law. Sri Bhattacharjee, learned Sen ior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that if the applicant could ha ve signed various forms and statements of his Company he could have also instruc ted his lawyer to prepare the appeal and put his signatures in the Vakalatnama o r the affidavits. 6. According to the learned counsel, the applicant has failed to gi ve satisfactory explanation for not filing the appeal for more than 2 (two) year s. 7. It is the settled position of law that the Courts should take a liberal view in condoning delays. In various judicial pronouncements, it has bee n held that the Court should not be dogmatic while examining an application for condonation of delay and the Court’s attitude should be pragmatic, lenient and f lexible. In other words, if the applicant can make out a prima facie case that h e was not in a position to file appeal within the statutory period and that he w as prevented from doing so under compelling circumstances, the Court should cond one the delay so that an appeal having merit should not be dismissed on technica l grounds and more particularly, if the applicant is the plaintiff he should not be unsuited from the case, 8. In the case at hand, the suit for realization of more than Rupee s Five Crores, was filed in the year 1998 and the defendants had taken more than a year to file their written statements. Even before filing of the written stat ements, there was an exparte decree. Thereafter, the decree was vacated on an ap plication filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Even the said application was filed a fter the statutory period and the delay was condoned and thereafter, the written statement was filed. After the exparte decree, various petitions were filed by the defendants in the trial Court. One such application was filed for referring the matter for arbitration by resorting to Section 8 of Arbitration Law and a se parate application under Section 89 CPC was also filed. Thereafter, as many as 3 (three) revision petitions were filed before this Court and finally vide order dated 22.02.2007, passed by this Court in WP(C) 3810 of 2004, this Court directe d the trial Court to examine the issue of territorial jurisdiction. On the basis of this direction, the learned Civil Judge decided that the suit ought to have been filed at Kolkata and not at Guwahati. Accordingly, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff vide impugned order dated 16.05.2007. 9. As noted earlier, the applicant is the Managing Director of a Pr ivate Limited Company. He was all along on medical treatment for various ailment s at different hospitals. In my considered opinion, though the applicant had sig ned certain statutory forms of the Company, it cannot be construed that he was p hysically fit to consult his lawyer and go through voluminous documents to file appeal within the statutory period. I am also of the view that the applicant/app ellant would not have been benefited in delaying the case. Even otherwise, the a ppellant may not be awarded any interest for the period of delay in filing the s uit after the disposal of the appeal, if the suit is entertained by a competent Court and allowed in favour of the plaintiff. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the prayer of the applicant is accept ed and the delay is accordingly, condoned. 11. Misc Case stands disposed of. 12. The Registry shall list the appeal for admission.