Judgment Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 43 Rule 1 of the C P Code against an order dated 09.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Misc. (J) Case No.32 of 2012. By the impugned order, learned Civil Judge dismissed the application made by the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C P Code on the ground of delay in filing the application late by 5 years 7 months and 19 days. Facts of the case are these. The appellant’s civil suit being Title Suit No.27 of 2003 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.07.2006 by the Civil Judge. The appellant therefore filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 to recall the order on 15.05.2012. Since there was delay of 5 years 7 months and 19 days in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 ibid and therefore an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also made by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the application. It is this application which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge holding that delay being inordinate and the appellant having failed to make out sufficient cause as required under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 ibid was liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. It was accordingly dismissed as barred by time. It is this order which is now impugned in this appeal. I have gone through the record of the case including the order dated 09.01.2014 impugned in this appeal and having gone through the same find no good ground to disagree with the view taken by the learned Civil Judge. The learned Judge while dismissing the application took into account the entire conduct of the appellant in prosecuting the civil suit coupled with the absence of cause to show as to why such inordinate delay of 5 years 7 months 19 days in filing the application was caused. In my view, apart from the fact that it is a pure question of fact which is binding on me, yet I find on appreciation of facts and evidence that no ground is made out to set aside the impugned order. In my view, apart from the fact that it is a pure question of fact which is binding on me, yet I find on appreciation of facts and evidence that no ground is made out to set aside the impugned order. If there is no ground made out on facts then whether appeal lies or revision lies against such dismissal, this Court cannot set aside the order for want of any factual foundation laid in the application. Indeed, the delay of 5 years 7 months 19 days is on the face of it appears to be abnormal and inordinate. It was to my mind a clear case where the appellant was sleeping over his rights and woke up out of slumber after 5 years. It was his duty to attend each date of hearing in Court in civil suit or/and keep contact with his lawyer as a vigilant litigant (plaintiff). A case of casualness or/and negligence is therefore clearly made out. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant was that all this happened due to negligence of the Advocate who was appearing for the appellant in civil suit. If that be so, then in my view, the remedy of the appellant would lie against the Advocate who caused loss to the appellant but that cannot be a good ground to recall the impugned order. As a consequence, I find no merit in this appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost.