1. Suit was dismissed for default. Application under 0.9 R.9 was filed by the plaintiff 54 days out of time. Therefore an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. Application for condonation of delay was dismissed. For that reason the application under 0.9 R.9 was also dismissed. Plaintiff filed C. M. Appeal against the order rejecting the application under 0.9 R.9. In that appeal he took grounds against rejection of the delay petition also. District Judge allowed the appeal. Second defendant seeks to revise that judgment.

2. There was serious challenge against the decision of the District Judge condoning the delay. But under S 115 CPC the power of the High Court is limited to see whether there has been assumption of jurisdiction when it did not exist; or refusal to exercise jurisdiction when it existed; or in the exercise of jurisdiction there was material irregularity or illegality. If none of these grounds are there and what is involved is only decision on a question of fact by appreciation of evidence, the High Court may not be justified in revision in interfering with that conclusion even if it is of the view that a different conclusion is possibl