Point of Law : sufficient reason' for extending the delay in filing the petition should be construed liberally on the non-action on the part of the advocate. Besides, there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always a sufficient ground.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners -Md. Amiratddin & 5 Ors., have put to challenge the judgment and order, dated 19.11.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat in Misc. Appeal No. 1/2018. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order, the learned Civil Judge had affirmed the order dated 13.09.2018, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 04/2018, arising out of T.S. No. 7/2015, by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat, whereby, the learned Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat, had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“The respondent, as plaintiff, instituted a title suit, being T.S. No. 07/2015, in the Court of Munsiff No.1, Golaghat, against the present petitioners, as defendants, for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of Khas possession by evicting the petitioners in respect of the suit land, measuring 1 bigha covered by the P.P. No. 223 at village Rangdhali Gaon, P.O. Batiporia, P.S. Dergaon, Mouza-Gurjugania, District Golaghat, Assam, as on 03.05.2012, the petitioners trespassed into the suit land and started construction of house thereon. The petitioners also contested the suit by filing their written statements stating interaliathat defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and the defendant no. 9 jointly purchased 5 Bighas of land out of 12 Bighas 1 Katha 13 Lechas of land covered by P.P. No. 223 at village Rangdhali Gaon, P.O. Batiporia, P.S. Dergaon, Mouza-Gurjungania, District Golaghat, Assam, from its original owner, Tankeswar Kalita, by executing a registered Sale Deed on 15.03.1993. By dint of the said Sale Deed the defendant No. 8 to 11 have been residing in the house constructed over the suit land. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit and also filed a counter claim praying for declaration of joint right, title and interest over the purchased land. However, the suit was proceeded ex-parte against the defendants on 01.09.2016, as on that day no steps were taken by their counsel. Thereafter, the learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat, decreed the suit ex-parte, vide judgment and decree dated 25.05.2017 and it was only on 05.04.218, when the Court Najir along with the Mandal went to the suit land to execute the decree that was passed in T.S. No. 07/2015, corresponding to title Execution No. 6/17, the petitioners came to know that the learned Court of Munsiff, Golaghat, passed an ex-parte judgment and decree, dated 25.05.2017, against the petitioners. However, the Court Najir on that day could not execute the decree due to some technical ground and, thereafter, the petitioners immediately collected the certified copy of the relevant order of the proceedings of the title suit from the office of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat, and discovered that their engaged counsel, Sri Prakash Ranjan Saikia, did not take any steps in the case and for his fault/conspiracy, the suit was decreed ex-parte. The petitioner then engaged another counsel, namely, D. Talukdar, and on 24.04.2018, filed one application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC before the learned Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat, for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2017, along with an application for condonation of delay of 303 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 04/18. However, the learned Munsiff, vide order dated 13.09.2018, dismissed the said petition holding that the delay was not explained properly. Then, being aggrieved by the said order dated 13.09.2018, the petitioners preferred an appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 01/2018, before the learned Civil Judge, Golahat. The learned Civil Judge, Golaghat, however, dismissed the appeal, vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2019, affirming the order dated 13.09.2018, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 04/2018, arising out of T.S. No. 7/2015, by th