IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.507 of 2007 Uma Shankar Prasad, alias Uma Shankar Prasad, son of late Kedar Nath Gupta, resident of Mohalla Bibiganj, Opposite Police Chauki, Danapur, P.O. Danapur Cantt., P.S. Danapur Cantt., District Patna. ………….. Petitioner-Respondent-Plaintiff versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Collector, Collectorate, Patna 2. The Deputy Superintendent, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Danapur, P.O. Danapur Cantt. P.S. Danapur, District Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon, Patna at Mahendrughat, near Civil Court Patna, P.O. Bankipore, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar at New Secretariat, P.O. and P.S. Secretariat, District Patna. 4. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department, New Secretariat, Patna. …Opposite Parties-Appellants-Defendants. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Manindra Nath Tiwari, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties: None. -------- 02/ 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner challenging order dated 05.12.2006, by which learned District Judge, Patna allowed the application filed by defendants-appellants-opposite parties for condoning the delay in filing of Money Appeal No. 04 of 2006. 3. The matter arises out of Money Suit No. 05 of 2003, which was filed by the petitioner for payment of admitted and unpaid bill of Rs.41,850.00 and interest at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs.18,832.00 for the materials supplied by the plaintiff as per the demand and approval of the defendants, namely, the authorities of the State of Bihar. The said suit was decreed by the learned court below vide its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2006. 2 4. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned court below, the defendants filed Money Appeal No. 04 of 2006. Since there was a delay of about six months in the filing of the said money appeal they filed an application for condoning the delay, which was allowed by the impugned order. 5. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that the learned court below on being satisfied condoned the delay by the impugned order in which this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court of appeal below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 6. However, the learned court of appeal below is directed to expedite the proceeding of the money appeal and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )