IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior court directions.

JUDGMENT :

(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)

1) Heard Mr. K. D. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the respondents.

2) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners impugning the order dated 04.08.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bajali, in Misc. (J) Case No. 06/2023, in connection with of Misc. Appeal No. 02/2023, whereby the delay of 99 days in preferring the Misc. Appeal No. 02/2023 was condoned by the said Court.

3) The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondents, as plaintiff, has filed a Title Suit No. 17/2018 against the present petitioners in the Court of learned Munsiff, Bajali Pathsala for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as well as for recovery of Khas possession by evicting the present petitioners from the suit land and for mandatory injunction.

4) The petitioners/defendants had filed an application (Petition No. 43 dated 04.02.2020) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the said suit, seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit land.

5) In connection with the aforesaid petition, the learned Munsiff, Bajali Pathsala, after hearing both the parties passed the order dated 19.03.2020 directing to maintain status-quo till the disposal of Petition No. 43.

6) On 20.03.2020, the respondent appeared before the Munsiff, Bajali and filed an application for vacating the order dated 19.03.2020. However, by order dated 01.07.2020 directed both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the Petition No. 43/2020.

7) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order of the status quo, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Barpeta under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said case was registered as Misc Appeal No. 02/2021. However, by order dated 30.06.2022 the said appeal was dismissed as during the pendency of the said appeal the injunction petition No. 43/2020 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 13.08.2020.

8) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 30.06.2022 passed in Misc Appeal No. 02/2021, the respondent had filed a Revision Petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said Revision Petition was registered as CRP (I/O) 256/2022.

9) By order dated 24.03.2023, this Court dismissed the said Revision Petition as not being maintainable. However, this Court granted liberty to the respondent to approach the appropriate appellate court under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the Order dated 13.08.2020 by which the petition No. 43/2020 dated 4.02.2020 was allowed subject to prescribed period of limitation.

10) Accordingly, the respondent preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing the order dated 13.08.2020, whereby the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the present petitioners in respect of the suit land.

11) As there was a delay in filing the said appeal, it was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. The said application was registered as Misc Case (J) No. 06/2023.

12) After hearing both the parties, the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bajali, Pathsala by order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Misc Case (J) No. 06/2023 had condone the delay subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the present respondent. This order has been impugned in the instant revision petition.

13) The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that in the application for condonation of delay the present respondent did not reveal the actual number of days of delay in preferring the Misc Appeal No. 02/2023. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the First Appellate Court has mechanically