Heard Mr. P. Upadhyay, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. J. Sharma, the learned Advocate for the respondent.

2. This appeal was initially filed as a revision under Section 115 CPC and was registered as CRP No. 160/2017. As the challenge was made to the order dismissing the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which was accompanying an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to vacate an ex parte decree, the appellants had filed a petition for conversion of revision into appeal, which was registered as IA(C) 4085/17 (in CRP 160/17), whereupon this Court by order dated 25.05.2018 had allowed conversion of the said revision into appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal was registered.

3. The sole respondent herein, namely, Abdul Aziz is the plaintiff in TS No. 233/14, which was filed against Nripendra Nath Gogoi, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The suit was for specific performance of contract to sell the suit land to the respondent. The suit was allowed by expartejudgment and decree dated 01.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Thereafter, the decree was put to execution by filing T. Ex. Case No. 7/2016.

4. The case projected by the appellants is that upon service of summons, their predecessor-in-interest had entered appearance in the suit on 11.02.2015 and instructed his advocate to get a copy of the plaint and documents and inform him, as the same was not served upon him. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, on good faith, believed on the information given by his Advocate that copy of plaint and documents were not served on him.

5. While waiting for being supplied with a copy of plaint and summons in TS 233/14, he was served with summons in connection with TS No. 169/16, filed by one Arjun Kumar Mahato for declaration and specific performance of contract in respect of the same suit land and for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2015 in TS No. 233/14. Accordingly, it was projected that for the first time on 15.06.2016, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had received knowledge about the ex parte decree dated 01.08.2015 in TS No. 233/14.

6. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was advised by his same advocate to contest TS No. 169/16 and to file appeal against decree dated 01.08.2015 in TS 233/14. Accordingly, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/-to his advocate for the same. Projecting that the financial condition of their predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was bad, he is stated to have made payment of money to his advocate on 15.08.2016. But as his previous advocate was pre-occupied, he advised the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants to engage another advocate. Thereupon, upon the advice given by the newly engaged advocate, the application for vacating the expartedecree was filed. It was also projected that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a diabetic patient and was mostly confined to his home and moreover, his mother, was also being taken care by him had also died on 06.06.2016, for which the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants could not attend the Court regularly. It is further projected that the respondent herein had manufactured false, forged and fabricated documents and had obtained the decree and accepting the case of the plaintiff in TS No. 169/16, the case projected in TS No. 233/14 was denied.

7. In the proceeding of T.Ex. No. 7/2016, the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was numbered as petition No. 257/16 and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning 365 days delay was numbered as petition No. 256/16, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 604/16. The respondent contested the said application and the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by an order dated 20.12.2016 had rejected Misc. (J) Case No. 604/16. Immediately thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of