CR 30 of 2008. 19.11.2008 Present: Mr. Varinder Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, counsel for the respondent. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant- petitioner herein against the order of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred by the petitioner herein. The respondent – plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,83,350/- from the petitioners for refund of fees and security amount etc. which was due and outstanding to him. The suit after trial was decreed by the learned trial Court. The appeal being barred by time, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred by the petitioners herein. The ground taken was that the Advocate who was engaged by the petitioners herein had failed to inform the petitioner regarding the fate of the case. The learned appellate Court settled two issues as to whether there was sufficient cause made out to condone the delay and relief if any to be granted. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence on record, did not accept the evidence on behalf of the petitioner. -2- The delay of 11 months was inordinate and there was no justifiable ground, explanation or evidence on record to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Court has taken a hyper technical view and the approach of the Court is not justice oriented. I am not persuaded to accept this argument. The learned appellate Court has, on clear and cogent evidence recorded before it, found that the evidence led before it on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not the function of this Court to reappreciate evidence in revision proceedings. Even otherwise, I do not find that the reasons given by the learned appellate Court for discarding the evidence of the petitioner are outside the settled ambit and principles of law. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in an execution filed by the respondent herein, the entire amount has been paid to them on 21.12.2005 which order has been recorded by the learned executing Court in execution proceedings. This fact is not disputed before me. There is thus no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications shall also stand dismissed. November 19, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.