H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. ( 2 ) ). This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 17-3-1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bidar, in the matter of application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act (Misc. Case No. 51/89 ). The present petitioner had been the defendant in O. S. No. 142/85 against whom decree has been passed in the suit vide judgment dated 19-11-1987/21-11-1987. The appeal had been preferred on 28-3-1989. There was a delay of one year four months and eight days. In the affidavit it has been stated that the appellant-applicant who is the present petitioner had been continuously ill and under the treatment from Doctor from 15-11-1987 to 27-3-1989. The applicant had produced the medical certificate of the Doctor. The defendant had also been examined and cross-examined by the learned District Government Pleader on the question whether he was a pauper. It is mentioned in the judgment of the learned Civil Judge that on the matter of condonation of delay no doubt appellant examined himself, but he was not cross-examined by the respondents who remained absent. The revision petitioner i. e. , the appellant also filed the medical certificate at Ex. P. 1. But the Court below rejected the application for condonation of delay opining that he had failed to show that he was not in a position to get the appeal filed in time. Feeling aggrieved from this order, the appellant has come up in revision. ( 3 ) I have heard Smt. Sharadha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. ( 4 ) IT has been contended by Ms. Sharadha, learned counsel for the applicant that the Court below had acted illegally in rejecting the application for condonation of delay without applying the basic principles of law that no person should be deprived of remedy before the Court or course of justice simply on account of his economic or other disability as per Article 39-A of the Constitution. She further contended that the present applicant who was the appellant before the Court below was an aged person aged about 75 years and he was suffering from ailments and he was advised to take complete bed-rest, no doubt he was not an indoor patient. She further contended that the present applicant who was the appellant before the Court below was an aged person aged about 75 years and he was suffering from ailments and he was advised to take complete bed-rest, no doubt he was not an indoor patient. Learned counsel contended that there was no cross-examination of the defendant. Learned counsel contended that the learned Civil Judge has not held that the medical certificate is unbelievable. Learned counsel contended that the learned Civil Judge merely observed that the applicant could have got the appeal filed through some of his family members. Learned counsel contended that this reasoning of the Court below is erroneous as well as resulted in the Court of acting illegally. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, no doubt, well settled principles of law and that Constitution assures justice to the parties. It is also further provided as an important principle of constitutional law as urged by Ms. Sharadha that under Article 39-A it is provided that the State shall ensure that the operation of legal system promotes justice based on equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The fact that the applicant was ill and was advised bed-rest really has not been disputed by the respondents. He had filed the medical certificate of the Doctor indicating that the applicant being sick and was advised to take bed-rest. The person must be an indoor patient for the purpose of being advised bed-rest is not necessary. If a person is aged and ill, he may be advised to take bed-rest at home. The approach in such matters should be justice oriented and keeping in view the basic principles of law and Art. 39-A. The learned Court below when it said that he could have got the appeal filed through some of his family members, here evidence about the family members has not been produced. Secondly, law requires him, i. e. , applicant to explain why he could file appeal. May be that children may be living separately and may not be taking care of their father. Secondly, law requires him, i. e. , applicant to explain why he could file appeal. May be that children may be living separately and may not be taking care of their father. In my opinion, the approach of the Court is too technical in nature and the finding is based on irrelevant considerations as well on something applicant was not required to explain u/s. 5 of Limitation Act. The Civil Judge no where held that the certificate given by the Doctor is forged one and in absence of such a finding and in view of principles of law contained in Art. 39-A of the Constitution which the Court ignored to take into consideration, in my opinion, the learned Court below has acted illegally and irregularly and in my opinion, this is a fit case where the person is a old man and sick, definitely the matter deserves consideration keeping in view the basic principles of law under Article 39-A. Thus considered, the revision is allowed. Delay is condoned. Let the application for being considered to sue as an indigent person be considered and if it is allowed, then the appeal may be considered on merits. --- *** --- .