JUDGMENT 1.The appellants in this appeal have called in question the order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, P:uri in Title Appeal No.93 of 2000. 2.Facts necessary for the purpose are as under :- The respondent as the plaintiff had filed the suit i.e. Title Suit No.299 of 1994 for permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit land. The suit having decreed on contest, the appellants as the unsuccessful defendants had filed the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was numbered as Title Appeal No.93 of 2000 in the Court of learned District Judge, Puri. The memorandum of appeal having been presented after a lapse of 2 years and 2 months (790) days after expiry of period of appeal, a petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal as required under Order 41 Rule 3-A read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed. 3.On 5.9.2001, the learned counsel for the parties had filed their memo of appearance. However, when the matter was called for hearing on the question of condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the appellants remained absent. In that situation, the learned counsel for the District Judge simply hearing the learned counsel for the respondent came to conclude that the explanation for condonation of delay was not acceptable and the delay to have not been well explained. Therefore, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected and consequently, the memorandum of appeal. 4.The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the order passed by the lower appellate Court refusing to condone the delay by passing non-speaking order is perverse and vitiated ?”. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.. Perused the impugned order. 6.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants had nothing to do on that day as they had engaged their counsel to move the petition for condonation of delay and when he remained absent, the Court should not have gone to decide the petition on merit by saying the explanation for the purpose of condoning the delay as not acceptable and the proper course on its part was to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. Thus, he submits that such order refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently rejecting the memorandum of appeal having been passed behind the back of the appellants and that too on merit which is a non-speaking one is liable to be set aside being in violation of principles of natural justice, as has been passed without any reason and by non-application of mind. 7.Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the lower appellate Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the long delay has rightly rejected the petition for condonation of delay. 8.It appears from the impugned order that when the petition for condonation of delay was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants was absent though the learned counsel for the respondent was then present. So in that circumstance,, there was no occasion for the lower appellate Court to take up the hearing of the petition for condonation of delay on merit and then upon hearing the learned counsel for the respondent alone to pass an order on merit simply saying the explanation given in the petition as not acceptable and without saying as to why and for what reason/s. Nothing is stated that there was no such sufficient cause for the delayed filing of appeal. Since in the matter of condonation, the lower appellate Court having seen no reason to reject the petition in limini had already issued the notice to the respondent in adherence to the provision of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-A of Order 41 of the Code, the matter thus stood to be decided finally before proceeding to deal with the appeal under Rule 11 of the said Order. The order impugned even finds mention as why the explanation was found to be unacceptable or what was the reason for it. Thus, the same not only appears to be non-speaking one but also it has to be said to be the outcome of application of mind. The reasons which are the heart beats of the order is found to be conspicuously absent. The fact also stands that the appellants were deprived of the opportunity of hearing in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons which are the heart beats of the order is found to be conspicuously absent. The fact also stands that the appellants were deprived of the opportunity of hearing in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In view of all these, this Court in the interest of justice feels it proper that the appellants be given a chance of hearing in the matter of condonation of delay in filing the appeal for decision with regard to the same afresh in accordance with law keeping in view above observations. 9.In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 5.9.2001 passed in Title Appeal No.93 of 2000 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court of learned District Judge, Puri for hearing the parties afresh in the matter of condonatiohn of delay of 790 days in filing the appeal in finding out whether the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause for all these period in not filing the appeal within the time as prescribed under the law. Since the appeal is very old, this Court directs the parties to appear in the said Court on 16.1.2016 to receive further instruction, as also the learned District Judge, Puri is directed to dispose of the matter of condonation of delay within a period of one month being computed from the date of appearance of the parties as stated above in accordingly deciding the further course of action as per law. 10.In the result, the appeal stands allowed. There shall be however no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.