JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra; CJ 1. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 17.9.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Bishnupur in Judl. Misc. Case No. 65 of 2014 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Appeal No. 0 of 2014. 2. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners have filed O.S. No. 13 of 2008/14 of 2013 before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bishnupur and in the said suit, an injunction application was filed by the petitioners under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The said injunction application was registered as IA No. 1 of 2013. The learned Civil Judge, by order dated 15.5.2014, rejected the application for grant of injunction. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur but the Misc. appeal was not registered as there was delay in filing the Misc. appeal. Therefore, Judicial Misc. case No. 65 of 2014 was filed to condone the delay in filing the Misc. appeal before the learned District Judge. 3. It was contended by the petitioners before the learned District Judge that the injunction application was fixed to 15.5.2014 for pronouncement of orders and when their Advocate verified from the Court, he found the suit to have been posted to 25.6.2014. He also verified from the Bench clerk about pronouncement of orders on the application for grant of injunction but was informed that the orders have not been pronounced. Thereafter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners went to Court on 25.6.2014 to appear in the suit and found that their application for grant of injunction was disposed of on 15.5.2014. Thereafter, they applied for certified copy of the order dated 15.5.2014 and preferred the Misc. appeal before the learned District Judge. Consequently, there was delay in filing the Misc. appeal before the learned District Judge and application was filed for condoning such delay on the grounds mentioned earlier. 4. An objection was filed by the present respondents to the said application for condonation of delay on the ground that injunction application after being heard was posted to 15.5.2014 for pronouncement of orders and the order was also pronounced on the same day. The suit was posted to 2.6.2014 and not 25.6.2014 as submitted by the plaintiffs/petitioners. 4. An objection was filed by the present respondents to the said application for condonation of delay on the ground that injunction application after being heard was posted to 15.5.2014 for pronouncement of orders and the order was also pronounced on the same day. The suit was posted to 2.6.2014 and not 25.6.2014 as submitted by the plaintiffs/petitioners. As a matter of fact, on 2.6.2014, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners was present in Court to appear in the suit and therefore, contention of the petitioners that they came to know about the order dated 15.5.2014 only on 25.6.2014 is not correct. 5. Learned District Judge, however, verified the records of the learned Civil Judge and found that the suit had been posted to 2.6.2014 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had also appeared in the suit on that day. Therefore, learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not approach the Court with clean hands and as such dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 6. Shri Nabachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on 15.5.2014, he was present in Court but no order was pronounced on the application for grant of injunction. On the other hand, the suit was posted to 25.6.2014 for which he had not gone to the said Court in between 15.5.2014 and 24.6.2014. Only on 25.6.2014, he came to know about the order dated 15.5.2014 and immediately applied for certified copy of the order. After obtaining the certified copy of the order, without any further delay, he had filed the Misc. appeal before the learned District Judge. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it was because of his mistake, there was delay in filing the Misc. appeal and therefore, the same should be condoned. 7. Shri T. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was very much aware of posting of the case to 2.6.2014 and had appeared in the suit on that day. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel that he came to know about passing of the order dated 15.5.2014 only on 25.6.2014 is not borne out from the record. He having appeared on 2.6.2014, must have verified about passing of the order on 15.5.2014. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel that he came to know about passing of the order dated 15.5.2014 only on 25.6.2014 is not borne out from the record. He having appeared on 2.6.2014, must have verified about passing of the order on 15.5.2014. It was further contended by the learned counsel that though the delay is not much, considering the fact that the petitioners have not come to Court with clean hands. Learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay. 8. Admittedly, after hearing the application for grant of injunction, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bishnupur had fixed the date to 15.5.2014 for pronouncement of order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had gone to the Court of the learned Civil Judge on 15.5.2014 to find out as to whether order has been pronounced or not. After verifying from the Bench clerk, he left the Court but as rightly observed by the learned District Judge, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners should have waited till 4.00 p.m. for pronouncement of the order. It is the case of the petitioners that on 15.5.2014, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners found the suit to have been posted to 25.6.2014 and therefore, did not go the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bishnupur in between 16.5.2014 and 24.6.2014. This fact is incorrect as is evident from the record. The suit had been posted to 2.6.2014 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners appeared in the suit before the learned Civil Judge on that day. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that counsel for the petitioners must have come to know about the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in the injunction application on 2.6.2014. 9. Even considering the fact that the petitioners have come out with a story in order to explain the delay, this Court could take a liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay. However, I am not inclined to take a liberal view considering the conduct of the petitioners not only in conducting the suit but also the manner in which this revision has been filed. However, I am not inclined to take a liberal view considering the conduct of the petitioners not only in conducting the suit but also the manner in which this revision has been filed. In para 10 of the Revision petition, it is stated that after the records were received by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, the learned Judge did not give any chance to the learned counsel for the petitioners to check the case records and also did not given any chance of hearing to the learned counsel. It is further stated that the impugned order dated 17.9.2014 was passed in absence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. This allegation made in the Revision petition against the learned District Judge is not borne out from the record. From the impugned order, I find that the application for condonation of delay was heard on 30.8.2014 and the order was pronounced on 17.9.2014. In para 4 of the impugned order, the learned District Judge has observed that he had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and he also recorded the submissions made by the learned counsel of the petitioners. Therefore, the allegation made against the learned District Judge, as stated earlier, is purposefully made without any basis. 10. For the reasons stated above, though the delay in filing the Misc. appeal is hardly 30 days, considering the manner in which the case has been conducted as well as the attempt made by the petitioners to create a story to get over the delay, I am of the view that the party who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to the discretionary relief. Accordingly, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The Revision is, consequently, dismissed. __