Judgment Subal Baidya, J. This is an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner Smt. Shaila Sankari Devi on 23.06.1995 challenging the legality and justifiability of the judgment dated 8th April, 1994 passed by the then learned Assistant District Judge, Jangipur in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993. 2. The case of the petitioner as narrated in the revisional application runs as follows: 3. The opposite party No. 1 as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 232 of 1984 for recovery of possession of the suit premises on revocation of licence against the present petitioner before the then 1st Court of the learned Munsif, Jangipur, Dist. Murshidabad and the said suit was decreed ex-parte on 17.11.1988 in the absence of the petitioner and against that ex-parte decree, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 114 of 1988 which was dismissed vide Order No. 22 dated 21.07.1992 and against that order the present petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of four days’ delay in filing the said appeal. But the then learned Assistant District Judge, Jangipur vide order dated April 8, 1994 was pleased to dismiss the said Misc. Appeal on the ground that the petitioner did not give any explanation for the four days’ delay in filing the said appeal. 3. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated April 8, 1994, the petitioner has filed the revisional application along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act on the grounds that the petitioner is an old lady and the learned Assistant District Judge erred in law in not condoning the four days’ delay in filing the appeal and also the learned Assistant District Judge did not consider that the delay was due to mistake of the lawyer in not giving her proper advice to give the explanation in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and hence the petitioner has filed the revisional application along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the revisional application before this Court. 4. 4. It has been stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the petitioner is an old and ailing widow living separately in mess with her sons after the death of her husband and as a result, her sons do not take any interest in the conduct of the suit and she herself has to look after the suit and meet her lawyer as and when she keeps good health. It has also been stated that after the order of dismissal of the Misc. Appeal the petitioner met her lawyer of Jangipur Court who advised her to apply for certified copy of the impugned judgment, but immediately she could not collect money needed for getting the certified copy of the impugned judgment and at last after managing money for that purpose she handed over the same to her lawyer. It has also been stated that the petitioner used to meet her lawyer every month as advised and last of such meeting was on February 15, 1995 when her lawyer advised her to move the Hon'ble High Court against the said impugned judgment and for that purpose her lawyer advised her to go to Calcutta with all necessary papers. 5. It has also been stated that the petitioner came to know from her lawyer of Jangipur Court that one Mr. Md. Manuhar Ali practicing in High Court comes to Berhampore every Saturday, but she was informed that the said Mr. Manuhar Ali was not coming to Berhampore due to the continuing cease-work by the lawyers of the Hon'ble Court and ultimately, on March 25, 1995 they met Mr. Ali at Berhampore and she was advised that she would have to move a revisional application along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, but on April 1, 1995. Mr. Ali informed her that he suddenly fell ill and as such he could not make the said applications ready and told her that on his recovery from illness he would inform her to send a person for affirming the affidavit and ultimately, on May 15, 1995 the petitioner was informed by Mr. Mr. Ali informed her that he suddenly fell ill and as such he could not make the said applications ready and told her that on his recovery from illness he would inform her to send a person for affirming the affidavit and ultimately, on May 15, 1995 the petitioner was informed by Mr. Ali that he was fit and he has made the applications ready and requested her to send a competent person to affirm the affidavit and thereafter, the petitioner taking one of her sons came to Kolkata on June 21, 1995 and for that reason the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay for getting the revisional application admitted. 6. The learned advocates of both sides submitted that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be heard and disposed of simultaneously. 7. In view of the above submission, both the matters have been taken up for consideration and hearing. 8. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party No. 1 being the plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 232 of 1984 against the present petitioner praying for recovery of possession of the suit premises after evicting her therefrom and as the petitioner failed to submit written statement on account of her illness, the said suit was decreed exparte and against that ex-parte decree, the petitioner filed the Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same Court, but the then learned Munsif, First Court, Jangipur dismissed the said Misc. Case and against that order, the petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He further submitted that in the impugned judgment the learned Assistant District Judge, Jangipur opined that the petitioner had sufficient reason by which she was prevented from appearing in the First Court of learned Munsif, at Jangipur, but the learned Assistant District Judge, by the impugned order dismissed that Misc. Appeal and being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up before this Court with the present applications. 9. Appeal and being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up before this Court with the present applications. 9. He submitted that there are series of decisions regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and it is also the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court that liberal approach should be adopted while considering the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this regard, he referred to the decision reported in 2013(3) ICC 546, AIR 1988 SC 897 , AIR 1983 CAL 124 , AIR 2003 SC 4244 , (1998)7 SCC 123 , 2012(3) ICC 572 and AIR 1987 SC 1353 and submitted that in view of principle of law enunciated in the above cited decisions, the delay in preferring the revisional application may be condoned and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be allowed and the petitioner who is an old, ailing and illiterate village lady may be given an opportunity to contest the title suit by filing the written statement as the order passed in the Misc. Case by the then learned Munsif has been merged with the impugned judgment passed by the then learned Assistant District Judge, Jangipur in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993. 10. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that as the petitioner is an old and illiterate village lady, she had to depend on her lawyer and such delay practically was caused for the negligence on the part of her lawyer. He also submitted that it is settled principle of law that for the negligence of the lawyer a party should not be suffered in any manner. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the opposite party No. 1 being the plaintiff filed the suit in the First Court of the then learned Munsif at Jangipur praying for recovery of the suit premises after evicting the present petitioner therefrom and as the present petitioner failed to file the written statement, so the said suit was decreed ex-parte under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also submitted that as per Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. when the defendant fails to submit the written statement and the Court will proceed with the disposal of the suit ex-parte and if the said decree is passed under Order 8 Rule 10, that decree can be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by filing any application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. He further submitted that being the legal position, the Misc. Case filed by the present petitioner in the First Court of the then learned Munsif at Jangipur praying for setting aside ex-parte decree and thereafter the preferring of Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993 in the Court of the then learned Assistant District Judge, Jangipur are not maintainable in law. He also submitted that the instant revision challenging the judgment passed in the said Misc. Appeal is also not legally maintainable. 13. The learned advocate for the opposite party No. 1 then referred to the decision reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 , (2010)5 SCC 459 , 2013(3) CHN (SC) 143, AIR 1990 Guwahati 35, AIR 1982 Delhi 280, AIR 1991 Patna 60 & AIR 1988 Delhi 55 and submitted that the petitioner filed the Misc. Case under Order 9 Rule 13 praying for setting aside the decree passed ex-parte, but the said Misc. Case was dismissed on contest and against that order of dismissal the present petitioner preferred a Misc. Appeal in the local Court along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. He also submitted that in the said application under section 5 of the Limitation Act the present petitioner gave no explanation for such delay in preferring the Misc. Appeal and on that ground the learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the Misc. Appeal. He further submitted again the petitioner filed the revisional application before this Court along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act giving some grounds for such delay which is not at all convincing. He also submitted that the petitioner has taken a dilatory tactics and by that way the present opposite party no. 1 has been suffering from the last 18 years. He also submitted that in the first instance, their exist no cogent ground to condone the delay and secondly, the filing of the Misc. He also submitted that the petitioner has taken a dilatory tactics and by that way the present opposite party no. 1 has been suffering from the last 18 years. He also submitted that in the first instance, their exist no cogent ground to condone the delay and secondly, the filing of the Misc. Case and thereafter the Misc. Appeal are not legally entertainable as the order passed in the title suit was under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the present revisional application along with the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act should be dismissed being not maintainable in law and thirdly, the delay in presenting the applications, appeals cannot be condoned at ease on the plea of negligence on the part of the lawyer and it is to be looked into whether the delay was actually caused due to lawyer’s negligence. 14. Going through the Order No. 22 dated 21.07.1992 passed in Misc. Case No. 114 of 1988 it transpires that the Title Suit No. 232/84 was fixed for ex-parte hearing on 17.11.1988 and on the very day it was decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff. It goes to establish that even before 17.11.1988 the present petitioner as defendant did not appear in the said title suit and also did not file the written statement and that is why the said suit was fixed for hearing ex-parte. It has been held in the decision reported in AIR 1982 Delhi 280, that where the judgment is pronounced under Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C., an appeal is maintainable under Section 96 of the C.P.C. and as such no revision petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. is maintainable. Similar decision has been pronounced in the case reported in AIR 1990 Guwahati 35. Similar decision has been pronounced in the case reported in AIR 1990 Guwahati 35. It has also been held in the case reported in AIR 1981 Patna 60 that where the defendant appeared, but did not file written statement after being granted many adjournments and the judgment followed by a decree was passed, it could not be called an ex-parte decree within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 in view of the amended provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 and hence, there would be no need to fix any date for ex-parte hearing and therefore, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside an ex-parte decree would not be maintainable as the decree passed was not an ex-parte decree. It appears from the case reported in 2013(3) CHN (SC) 143 that a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court held that any decree passed under Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. could not be subjected to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. It is further found that in the said referred case the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has not decided the issue as to whether the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. in case where the suit was decreed under Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. is maintainable. 15. At the time of hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner practically submitted nothing as to whether the decree passed in the title suit was within the meaning of Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. or not. However, this is one aspect of the submissions made by the learned advocates of both sides. 16. The other aspect of the matter is relating to the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is true that at present a liberal view is adopted while allowing the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but at the same time it is also mandatory that the delay in presenting the proper application must be explained satisfactorily in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. From the impugned judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993 it transpires that the then learned Assistant District Judge clearly held that the present petitioner while presenting the Misc. From the impugned judgment passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 1993 it transpires that the then learned Assistant District Judge clearly held that the present petitioner while presenting the Misc. Appeal mentioned in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act that there was delay of only four days. But it transpires from the impugned judgment that there has been an inordinate delay very much more than mere four days and the said application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was fully of vague statements and without supported by any affidavit. Not only so, the learned Court below clearly observed that the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order passed in Misc. Case for preferring Misc. Appeal only on the day the period of Limitation was to have expired. Going through the impugned judgment it is clear that the then learned Assistant District Judge rightly held that the delay in preferring the Misc. Appeal remains unexplained and the petitioner took a dilatory tactics to stall execution to the decree passed in the title suit and could not make out any case containing sufficient reasons for not preferring the said Misc. Appeal within the period of Limitation and also rightly held that the appeal is hopelessly barred by Limitation. 17. I have gone through the cited decisions referred to by the learned advocates of both sides in respect of the principle of law laid down for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. After hearing the learned advocates of both sides and also considering the principle of law enunciated in the above referred cases relating condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act and also going through the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act it is the considered view of this Court that the petitioner has made out a case showing sufficient reasons for not preferring the revisional application within the statutory period. That being the position, the delay caused in preferring the revisional application is condoned and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the revisional application under section 115 of the C.P.C. is admitted. 18. It transpires from the impugned judgment that the Misc. Appeal was dismissed being barred by law of Limitation. That being the position, the delay caused in preferring the revisional application is condoned and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the revisional application under section 115 of the C.P.C. is admitted. 18. It transpires from the impugned judgment that the Misc. Appeal was dismissed being barred by law of Limitation. Going through the impugned judgment it is palpable that the then learned Assistant District Judge rightly held in the impugned judgment that the petitioner failed to explain properly the delay in preferring the said Misc. Appeal. So, in this regard, nothing is found to interfere with the said judgment and as such the impugned judgment only on the point of Limitation should be affirmed. 19. It is evident from the Order No. 22 dated 21.07.1992 passed in Misc. Case No. 114/88 that the present petitioner failed to submit written statement in the Title Suit No. 232 of 1984 and on 30.08.1988 the petitioners prayed for time to file a written statement, but her prayer was rejected for the last time on 30.08.1988 after she was given ample opportunities in that regard and the suit fixed for ex-parte hearing on 17.11.1988 was decreed to that effect on that day. In the order of the Misc. Case the then learned Munsif clearly held that the decree passed in the title suit was under Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. It is already mentioned that the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted nothing in this regard. Although the learned Assistant District Judge in the impugned Judgment did not agree with the decision of the learned Court below passed in Misc. Case to the effect that the order passed in the title suit was in accordance with Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. But in view of the decision reported in AIR 1991 Patna 60, AIR 1990 Guwahati 35 and AIR 1982 Delhi 280 which have not been shown as overruled, it is the considered view of this Court that the order passed in the title suit was decreed within the meaning of Order 8 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. and that order can only be challenged in a title appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but not by filing any application under Order 9 Rule 13 and thereafter by filing any Misc. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. It has already held that the impugned Judgment so far the question of Limitation as held by the then learned Assistant District Judge is concerned, there is nothing to interfere with and taking that view in mind, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant revision application having no merit is liable to be dismissed. 21. Therefore, the revisional application under section 115 of the C.P.C. is dismissed. The interim order of injunction restraining the opposite party No. 1 from executing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 232 of 1984 stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. The urgent Photostat certified copy of the order be supplied, if applied for, as per rules.