Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order and decretal order dated 18.09.2009 in I.A.No. 289 of 2008 in C.F.R.No.293 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Gobichettipalayam. 2. The revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the first Appellate Court condoning the delay in re-presenting the appeal on a cost of Rs.1000/-. According to the revision petitioner, the respondents/ defendants/ appellants before the first Appellate Court have not shown sufficient cause for the delay and therefore, the first Appellate Court should have dismissed the application. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The suit is for bare injunction with regard to the usage of cart track. Both the revision petitioner and the defendant are agriculturists and adjoining land owners. The suit has been decreed after contest and the appeal has been filed but there is a delay in re-presenting the appeal, which is purely technical. That could be considered in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, who submitted that the appeal papers were signed and delivered to the counsel but for whatever reasons, the appeal papers could not be re-presented in time. The respondent is bonafidely prosecuting the matter and he is a farmer and therefore, he is unable to know the niceties of the legal procedures. The Court below, considering the nature of the litigation of the parties is justified in allowing the application by imposing reasonable cost. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below to interfere with the same. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed. No costs.