JUDGMENT 1. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.917 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs: “For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendants: i) for a declaration that the suit property belong to the plaintiffs and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, ii) for the cost of the suit and, iii) for such other and further reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and render justice.” However, the defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. Issues were framed and the trial commenced. At the time of cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the defendants remained ex-parte. Subsequently, an I.A. was filed to get the delay of 45 days condoned under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC on the main ground that the Advocate for the defendants was arrested by CBI. The Lower Court, after considering the same, allowed the application condoning the delay by imposing a cost of Rs.500/-. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, placing reliance on the grounds of revision and also the following two decisions, viz. 1) Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by LRs. v. Exe.Eng.Jalgaon Medium Project, reported in 2008 (5) CTC 663 and 2) Jayaraman, G. v. Devarajan, reported in 2007(2) CTC 643 , would pyramid his argument to the effect that the Court cannot be generous in simply condoning the delay as the reasons found set out in the affidavit for getting the delay condoned are far from satisfactory. 3. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that because the defendants' Advocate was arrested, they could not prosecute the matter properly. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 45 days? 5. 3. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that because the defendants' Advocate was arrested, they could not prosecute the matter properly. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 45 days? 5. At the outset, I would like to point out that the delay of 45 days cannot be termed as huge and in such a case, the lenient view taken by the Lower Court warrants no interference. Over and above that, the incontrovertible and inarguable fact is that the counsel who appeared for the defendants was arrested by CBI and in such a case, the defendants being railway officials, did not have had the opportunity of prosecuting their case before the Trial Court. Hence, in this view of the matter, no interference with the order passed by the Lower Court is warranted. However, the cost of Rs.500/- awarded by the Lower Court is on the lower side. On balance, I would like to enhance the same to Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) and whatever cost remains unpaid, shall be paid within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC shall be taken up and disposed of. In the event of allowing such application, the suit itself shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.