Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.

1. This revision is preferred by one of the defendants against the order by which the defendants' appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been dismissed by order dated 22-1-1999 passed by Smt. Nirmala Singh, Vth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the lower appellate Court') in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 47/

98. In this appeal, the defendants had challenged the order dated 17-10-1997 passed by Shri S. S. Netam, IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 17/97 by which their application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23-7-1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 117-A/88 by the trial Court was rejected.

2. This case demonstrates how a pedantic and hyper-technical view taken by the Court while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for condoning the delay in filing an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of setting aside ex parte Judgment and decree