IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1626 of 2007 ASHOK CHAUDHARY @ ASHOK KUMAR Versus RANJIT KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA & ORS ----------- 2 21.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in admitting the appeal subject to question of limitation as is clearly recorded there. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the provision of Order 41 rule 3A CPC seems to be wholly misconceived inasmuch as the appellate court has not yet condoned the delay and has held the appeal to be maintainable without condoning the delay. The appellate court has yet to hear the petitioner who has been issued notice to oppose the appeal both on merit and in limitation. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This civil revision application, in fact, is only a device to delay the disposal of the appeal. The petitioner ought to have been advised to contest the appeal instead of raising question which this court finds wholly frivolous. - 2 - Accordingly, this civil revision application is dismissed. shahid (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)