Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners application filled under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 31 days only for preferring appeal. The petitioners submission in the trial Court was that he is having a small tea stall, but in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, he mentioned that to earn labour, he went in a different village and, therefore, delay was caused. The First Appellate Court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 5 of Limitation Act, only on the ground that the petitioner has disclosed different job for himself than what he said in his statement during trial of suit. 3. On this ground, the Court should not have dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, because of the simple reason that a petty tea stall owner or a person working in the tea stall might have gone because of very many reasons to find out some job. 4. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merit 5. Both the parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 26.02.2007.