A court has the discretion to condone the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC if the applicant can show a sufficient cause for the delay.

( 1 ) THIS Revisional Application, which has been heard out as a 'contested Application', is directed against Order No. 84, dated 22nd June, 1987, passed by the learned Judge, First Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 1192 6f 1985. The said Misc. case arose out of an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a Suit for eviction being Ejectment Suit No. 665 of 1980 in connection with which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned Order the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Decree holder Plaintiff is the applicant before this Court.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the question raised by the contesting parties it would be necessary to take note of certain dates. The ex parte decree in the instant case was passed on 4th of March, 1985. The said decree was put into execution in Execution Case No. 109 of 1985. In that Execution Case the Decree holder filed an application for police help under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 579 of 1985. On or about 13th July, 1985 the notice of the aforesaid application for police help was served on the Judgment Debtor, the opposite party herein. On 28th September, 1985 the application for police help was allowed and on 9th October, 1985 possession of the Suit premises had been delivered to the Decree holder petitioner herein with police help. On 12th October, 1985 the aforesaid application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed but the application for condonation of delay in filing the same was preferred 3rd December, 1985.

( 3 ) THE delay, which has been condoned by the impugned Order, therefore, has been alleged to be two-fold -one in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 and another in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, As regards the first-fold of delay the dispute is confined to the merits of the sufficiency of the grounds for condonation and as regards the second-fold of the delay the dispute is of technical nature.

( 4 ) THE findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, which may be relevant fear consideration in the instant matter, are as follows: (1)the delay in fling the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is roughly six months and the delay in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, counted from the date of filing of the former application, is about two months. (2)talk of settlement was going on between the parties for a long time, at least from 11th of August, 1983 and the terms of settlement were under consideration of the parties. (3) On 15. 2. 1985 three pay Orders acre issued in favour of the wife of the present opposite party for a total sum of Rs. 30,000 payable to the plaintiffs/petitioners and the said pay Orders were encashed on 21. 2. 1985. The case of acceptance of the said amounts by way of security towards arrears of rent and compensation for damages was not believed upon consideration of the admissions made in the Written Objection. (4)three sets of Non-Judicial Stamp papers were purchased and the Deeds of Conveyance were engrossed on such stamp papers. (5)on 1. 3. 1985 the present petitioners/decree holders made an application before the Court for early hearing of the Suit without serving a copy. (6)defendant/opposite party with an honest belief did not know about the ex parte decree till August, 1985 when notice of application under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been served. (7) The defendant/opposite party was induced to believe that the Suit was going to be settled and so he did not