Judgment Asim Kumar Mondal, J. The matter is taken for passing order. The Learned Advocate for the applicant/petitioner appeared. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Party on repeated calls on three consecutive dates. It appears further that the notice has duly served by speed post upon the Opposite Party. Under the circumstances, heard learned Advocates for the petitioner. This revisional application is directed against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Jangipur, Mursidabad passed in Misc. Case No. 4/2007 being Order No. 42 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to allow the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, in favour of respondent/Opposite Party condoning the delay of about two years in presenting the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order under Rule 9 Order 13 C.P.C. The case of the petitioner in short is that petitioner filed a suit as plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction over a land at Mouza Mirzapur, Khatian No.1099, Dag No. 134/2092 against the present Opposite Parties. The said land was originally belonging to his father and subsequently he inherited the same. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 tried to make illegal construction into the suit property of a Hindu Mandir in the guise of a Hindu Janasadharan of the said locality. The learned Court below in course of hearing of the suit has been pleased to pass ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff on 5.1.2005 declaring the right title and interest in the suit property. Thereafter, after lapse of two years, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C for setting aside of said ex-parte decree with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on 21.3.2007. Learned Court below on hearing both sides and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the parties has been pleased to allow the said petition for condonation of delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision on the grounds that learned Court below before passing of such impugned order ought to have been taken into consideration the fact that the suit was decreed long back. 500/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision on the grounds that learned Court below before passing of such impugned order ought to have been taken into consideration the fact that the suit was decreed long back. Further for that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is per-verse and bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Further that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Opposite Party entered into appearance and contested the suit even through an authorise agents and under such circumstances, the entire liability on proceeding raised on his shoulder as well. Finally, the learned Court below acted mechanically and without application of mind, which is against the principle of natural justice and equity. Upon the case as made out in the application as well as the grounds as formulated, the only point is to be considered in the present application is whether impugned order is illegal and against the principle of natural justice and equity. It appears from the submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner, as well as from the impugned order being No. 42 dated 12.11.2009 passed by learned Court below, that the Opposite Party taken the plea of ignorance of the proceedings and fate of the suit before learned Court below. It is the case of the Opposite Party before the learned Court below that the original suit was filed against him and defendant No. 1, Bijoy Mondal in representative category and that he engaged Shri Shakhigopal Chatterjee, learned Advocate to conduct the case. He had faith upon the respondent/defendant No. 1 and who was the tadbirkar of the original case. That he was never informed about the fate of the case. The plaintiff declared that the case has been decreed ex-parte. The petitioner/defendant thereafter contracted their authorize lawyer, who for the first time disclose to them that suit has been decreed exparte. He also informed that the certified copy of the order was handed over to the defendant/Opposite Party No. 1, in the last week of February, 2007. Learned Advocate also informed that the ex-parte decree has been obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 1 engaging one Shri Madhusudan Das, Advocate. He also informed that the certified copy of the order was handed over to the defendant/Opposite Party No. 1, in the last week of February, 2007. Learned Advocate also informed that the ex-parte decree has been obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with defendant No. 1 engaging one Shri Madhusudan Das, Advocate. It appears from the observations and findings of learned Court below in the impugned order that learned Advocate for the petitioner opposing the application submitted learned Court below that there was no explanation whatsoever for such inordinate delay. Defendant No. 2 did not make any enquiries either from the defendant No. 1 or from the learned Advocate on record engaged by them. The defendant No. 1 and the learnedAdvocate are resident of same village i.e. Mirzapur. It isobserved by the learned Court below that original suit was filed against the petitioners that is the opposite parties herein in representative capacity. So, learned Court below has come into findings that some other persons might be affected by decree even though they were not brought on record and not aware of the suit. Learned Court below has been pleased to allow the petition for condonation of delay for the ends of justice, though he observed and find that the conduct of the petitioner/defendant No. 2 who is the Opposite Party No. 2 herein cannot be said blameless. Now, let us see whether the cause shown in the petition. For explaining delay by the Opposite Party is sufficient or not under the circumstances as transferred in the record. Nothing transferred in the impugned order as to whether the original suit was filed taking leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. or whether the Opposite Parties appeared in the said suit and contested in the capacity of representative character after taking leave of the court. Admittedly, the parties in the original suit are resident of the same village. The Opposite Party has relayed upon defendant No. 1 and the engaged lawyer. There is no other explanation given in details by the Opposite Party No. 2 petitioner for condonation of delay, save and excepting the allegation against Opposite Party No. 1 and their engaged lawyer to the effect that both of them did not informed him about the fate of the case and both of them in connivance with the plaintiff/petitioner allowed the suit decreed of ex-parte. But there is nothing to show what prevented him to enquired about the fate of the case either to his engaged lawyer or Opposite Party No. 1 after the period of institution of the suit and disclosing of fact of ex-parte decree by the plaintiff. Admittedly, all of them i.e. petitioner/plaintiff, Opposite parties/defendant and lawyers are resident of same village. The very conduct of the Opposite Party No. 2 is not at all satisfactory. Learned Court below no doubt has taken a liberal view in condoning delay of 2 years in the Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Taking a liberal approach does not mean that in all case delay is to be condoning on taking a liberal view. It depends on the facts and circumstances on each case. In the matter of condoning of delay the approach that should be adopted by the court must be pragmatic and justice oriented in order to rendered justice between the parties. Court has to assess the due diligence of the parties craving for condonation. In the instant case it is alleged that suit was filed in the representative character or the defendants appeared and contested in the suit as a representative character. So, it should be presumed that there are other so many villagers who were interested in the suit as well as in the construction of Mondir in a guise of Janasadharan. In such circumstances the defendant No. 2 slept over the matter for 2 years without conducting defendant No. 1 or his engaged lawyer to know the fate of the suit. Under such circumstances liberal approach should not be taken, as the defendants/Opposite Parties were not diligent in pursuing the suit and the blamed against the defendant No. 1 as well as the engaged lawyers appears baseless and not acceptable. In view of facts and circumstances as well as the above findings and materials on record this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prayer for condonation of delay should not be allowed taking the liberal approach as it is done in the impugned order. This court of the view that the impugned order should be set aside as same is not basis on any evidence and without considering the fact as to whether there was sufficient cause or not in condoning delay. Thus, the impugned order stands set aside.