S.K.MISHRA, J. CRP. NO.6 OF 2009 (Decided on 16.09.2011) ALOMINA EKKA ……..Petitioner. .Vrs. MIKHAIL EKKA & ANR. ……Opp.Parties. LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (ACT NO. 36 OF 1963) – S.14. For Petitioner - Ranjan Ku. Rout For Opp.Parties - Dinabandhu Naik The revision is preferred against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela in Misc. Case No.1 of 2003, wherein the application under Order 9, Rule-13, C.P.C. filed by the defendant was allowed and the exparte decree passed by the trial court on 26.11.2002 was set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing FAO No.8/2 of 2006-08 before the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge Rourkela, which was rejected as not maintainable. Thereafter, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed along with a misc. case to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Office has reported that there is a delay of 1216 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that she is an illiterate lady and was ignorant of the procedural law and the lawyer at Rourkela advised her to file an appeal against the said order dated 07.07.2005. Accordingly, she filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, F.T.C, Rourkela, which was registered as FAO No.8/2 of 2006-08. The said appeal was dismissed on 11.12.2008 as not maintainable. The petitioner submits that she obtained the certified copy of the order in FAO No.8/2 of 2006-08 on 18.12.2008 and the certified copy of the order in Misc. Case No.1 of 2003 on 19.12.2005. Thereafter, she consulted the lawyer at Rourkela, who advised her to file a civil revision before the Hon’ble High Court, and thereafter, she arranging money to file Civil revision came to Cuttack on 31.01.2009 and filed the revision on 02.02.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner under wrong premises and unaware of the procedural law has prosecuted the litigation with bonafide intention that the appeal is maintainable before the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Rourkela. Hence, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. No objection has been filed by counsel for the opposite parties. However, in course of argument, the opposite parties raised the question of limitation and argued that it has not been properly explained. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in the court without jurisdiction. In sub-Section (2) it is provided that in computing the period of limitation for any application, time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner must establish that she had been prosecuting the appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, FTC, Rourkela in good faith and with due diligence. In this case the petitioner has failed to establish that she has been prosecuting the civil appeal in due diligence and in good faith. Therefore, the period consumed as such in prosecuting such appeal will not be excluded from computing the period of limitation. Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner is assailing the order setting aside exparte decree passed against the opposite parties. It is well known that the provision of Order 9, Rule-13 CPC is a benevolent statute, which needs liberal interpretation. Keeping in view the unexplained delay and the aforesaid consideration, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela in Misc. Case No.1 of 2003, arising out of C.S. No.95 of 2001. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Send back the L.C.R. to the lower court forthwith. Revision dismissed. 2