C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Barkakati, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. By this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who filed Title Appeal No. 8/2012 in the court of the learned Civil Judge No. 3 Kamrup, Guwahati has challenged the orders dated 23.8.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 3/2012 and the Title Appeal No. 8/2012. By the impugned orders, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 326 days in preferring the said appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 passed in T.S. No. 28/2008. The learned Civil Judge by the impugned order also rejected the Memo of Appeal.

2. The respondent No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted the said Title suit, seeking decree for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession and also for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 of the said title suit. The petitioner, as defendant No. 2 contested the said suit by filing written statement. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned judgment and decree, dated 17.01.2011, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The said decree was put to execution and the executing court issued notice to the judgment debtor. The petitioner as judgment debtor received the said notice on 12.10.2011. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree on 01.11.2011 and obtained the same on 14.11.2011. On receipt of the certified copy of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner engaged his counsel and prepared memo of appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 and filed the appeal with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 326 days.

3. The plea of the petitioner was that his engaged counsel did not inform him about the decree passed in the suit and that the petitioner came to know about the decree only on 12.10.2011 i.e. the date on which he received notice from the executing court. Hence, the petitioner, as appellant, filed the appeal with a petition for condonation of delay. In the said petition, filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner stated that, after receipt of the certified copy on 14.11.2011, he came to Guwahati to engage his counsel for filing appeal and handed over the relevant papers to the newly engaged counsel, who took some time to peruse the relevant documents for preparing the memo of appeal.

4. It is also pleaded that the petitioner's power of attorney holder, who looked after the cases of the petitioner, suffered from acute abdominal pain and joint pain with effect from 16.11.2011 to 30.12.2011 and as per doctor's advice, he had to take rest. According to the petitioner, after his recovery from the ailment, the power of attorney holder of the petitioner approached the engaged counsel and the memo of appeal was filed on 19.01.2012.

5. The prayer for condonation of delay was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs. The learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati by the impugned order, dated 23.08.2012, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 3/2012 (arising out of Title Appeal No. 8/2012), after hearing both the parties, dismissed the petition and rejected the prayer for condonation of delay.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition on the grounds amongst others, that the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati committed error by failing to properly appreciate the grounds taken by the petitioner, in rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay.

7. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the engaged counsel of the petitioner did