ORDER: P.S.Rana, J. 1. Present revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. dated 23.12.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge Bilaspur whereby learned Addl. District Judge Bilaspur dismissed petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 47 days. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Km.Sudha Hans daughter of late Sh Ranjeet Singh plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff be declared joint owner in possession of land to the extent of 1/8th shares in the land and house situated in khata/khatanuni No.6 Min/296 khasra No. 1222, 1227 Plot No. 148 measuring 164.98 Sq.metre situated in up mohal Diara Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur HP. Plaintiff sought additional relief of injunction against the defendants restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or causing any interference with the possession of plaintiff from two rooms, kitchen, bath room and latrine. Defendants contested the suit before learned trial Court. As per pleadings of parties following issues framed by learned trial Court on 16.8.2010. 1. Whether plaintiff is joint owner in possession of 1/8th share in the suit property as alleged? …OPP. 2.Whehter plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? …OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file present suit? …OPD. 4.Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable? …OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit? …OPD. 6.Whether suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? …OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct to file present suit?. …OPD. 8 Relief. 3. Learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in affirmative. Learned trial Court decided issues No. 3,4,5, 6 and 7 in negative. Learned trial Court passed decree to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in possession of suit land to the extent of 1/8th shares in plot-house No. 148 situated over land comprised in khata/khatauni No.6 min 296 khasra Nos. 1222, 1227 measuring 164.98 Sq. yards situated in up mohal Diara Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur HP. Learned trial Court restrained defendants No. 1 to 3 and 7 permanently from causing any interference and dispossessing plaintiff from one room, kitchen, bathroom and latrine situated over suit land. 4. 1222, 1227 measuring 164.98 Sq. yards situated in up mohal Diara Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur HP. Learned trial Court restrained defendants No. 1 to 3 and 7 permanently from causing any interference and dispossessing plaintiff from one room, kitchen, bathroom and latrine situated over suit land. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court revisionist filed appeal before learned District Judge and also filed application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 47 days. Learned first appellate Court on dated 19.10.2013 framed following issues upon application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone delay in filing appeal as alleged?. ..OPP. 2. Whether appellant has not come to Court with clean hands?. ..OPR. 3. Relief. 5. Learned first appellate Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in negative and dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition: 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?. 2. Relief. 8. Finding on point No.1 with reasons: 8.1 AW1 Ramesh Chand has stated that civil suit was filed before learned trial Court and he engaged Advocate namely Sh Daya Sagar Bhardwaj. He has stated that he used to attend court proceedings occasionally. He has stated that his Advocate told him that he should not attend court proceedings regularly. He has stated that his Advocate told him that he would call him when he would be required in court proceedings. He has stated that his Advocate was patient of sugar, blood pressure and cancer. He has stated that on dated 18.10.2012 he went to residential house of his Advocate and his Advocate told him that case was decided by learned trial Court on 31.8.2012. He has stated that his Advocate was busy in his medical treatment. He has stated that thereafter he filed application for the copy of judgment of learned trial Court. He has stated that his Advocate told him that he would file appeal. He has stated that on 29.11.2012 he again visited residential house of his Advocate and inquired about filing of appeal. He has stated that thereafter he filed application for the copy of judgment of learned trial Court. He has stated that his Advocate told him that he would file appeal. He has stated that on 29.11.2012 he again visited residential house of his Advocate and inquired about filing of appeal. He has stated that his Advocate told him that he could not file appeal because learned Advocate remained busy in medical treatment at Chandigarh and Delhi. He has stated that his learned Advocate could not file appeal within time due to illness. He has stated that medical discharge summary of his Advocate is mark ‘A’ and treatment slip is mark ‘A-1’. He has stated that his original Advocate was Sh. D.S.Bhardwaj and he did not see Sh B.R.Rathore Advocate at any point of time. He has denied suggestion that he did not file appeal within time intentionally. He has denied suggestion that he did not properly prosecute the case. 8.2 AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj has stated that Sh. D.S.Bhardwaj was his father. He has stated that in the month of August-September 2012 his father was patient of cancer. He has stated that Sh D.S.Bhardwaj used to visit Ludhiana, Chandigarh, Delhi, Shimla and Mandi for medical treatment. He has stated that his father died on 9.2.2013. In cross examination he has admitted that during illness of his deceased father used to attend Court. He has stated that his father had performed his professional duty with devotion. 8.3 RW1 Smt. Sudha Hans has stated that she filed civil suit before learned trial Court for her share. She has stated that case was decided in her favour on dated 31.8.2012. She has stated that she used to attend the hearing of learned trial Court. She has stated that Sh Ramesh Hans used to attend Court proceedings occasionally. She has stated that Daya Sagar Bhardwaj and Sh Bali Ram Rathore Advocates used to appear on behalf of revisionist. She has stated that her brother did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. She has stated that only her uncle Ramesh Hans filed appeal. She has stated that her uncle did not adduce any oral evidence before learned trial Court in civil suit. She has stated that her uncle has stated before learned trial Court that he would not adduce any oral evidence. She has stated that only her uncle Ramesh Hans filed appeal. She has stated that her uncle did not adduce any oral evidence before learned trial Court in civil suit. She has stated that her uncle has stated before learned trial Court that he would not adduce any oral evidence. She has stated that when case was registered for final arguments before learned trial Court at that time revisionist was present in Court. She has stated that date for announcement of judgment was given by learned trial Court in the presence of revisionist. She has stated that judgment was announced by learned trial Court on 31.8.2012. She has stated that she has informed about announcement of judgment by learned trial Court to the revisionist. She has stated that residential house of Sh.D.S.Bhardwaj and Sh. Bali Ram Rathore is nearby the house of revisionist. She has stated that application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act should not be condoned because intentionally appeal was not filed by revisionist within time. She has admitted that revisionist is her uncle. She has admitted that on dated 31.8.2012 when judgment was announced on that date revisionist did not appear before learned trial Court. 9. Following documentary evidence adduced by revisionist. Ext.A copy of order sheet dated 4.8.2012, Ext.B copy of order sheet dated 18.8.2012, Ext.C copy of order sheet dated 30.8.2012 and Ext.D copy of order sheet dated 31.8.2012. 10. Section 5 of Limitation Act provides for extension of time in case of appeal and application other than those filed under Order XXI CPC. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 (DB) titled Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) It was held that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. It was held that when delay is condoned the highest that would happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) It was held that every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. It was held that doctrine must be applied in a rational manner. It was held that when delay is condoned the highest that would happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) It was held that every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. It was held that doctrine must be applied in a rational manner. (4) It was held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other then cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It was held that there is no presumption that delay is always occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. It was held that a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. It was held that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice. 11. In the present case AW1 Ramesh Chand when he appeared in witness box has specifically stated that on 18.10.2012 he went to residential house of his Advocate. He has stated that on 29.11.2012 again he went to residential house of his Advocate. He has stated that his Advocate was patient of cancer and his Advocate used to visit several places at Chandigarh and Delhi for his medical treatment of cancer. 12. Testimony of AW1 Ramesh Chand is corroborated by AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj who is the son of D.S.Bhardwaj. AW2 has stated that his father was patient of cancer. AW2 has specifically stated that his deceased father D.S.Bhardwaj used to visit Ludhiana, Chandigarh, Delhi, Shimla and Mandi for his medical treatment. AW2 has stated that his father died on 9.2.2013. Testimonies of AW1 Ramesh Chand and AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of AW1 and AW2. Testimony of AW1 and AW2 is further corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. discharge summary issued by super specialty hospital Max whereby it has been specifically mentioned that Advocate D.S.Bhardwaj was admitted on 14.9.2012 in hospital and he was patient of carcinoma. It is well settled law that marked documents can be looked for corroborative purpose under law. Court has also perused document mark ‘A’ issued by IGMC Shimla HP wherein medical treatment was obtained by Advocate of revisionist. 13. It is well settled law that marked documents can be looked for corroborative purpose under law. Court has also perused document mark ‘A’ issued by IGMC Shimla HP wherein medical treatment was obtained by Advocate of revisionist. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that delay is not bonafide and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj has stated in positive manner that his father D.S.Bhardwaj was patient of cancer. AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj has specifically stated that his father used to visit Ludhiana, Chandigarh, Delhi, Shimla and Mandi for his medical treatment. AW2 has specifically stated in positive manner that his father D.S.Bhardwaj died on 9.2.2013. Testimony of AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj remained un-rebutted on record. Testimony of RW1 Sudha Hans is not sufficient to rebut the testimony of AW1 Ramesh Chand and AW2 Abbey Bhardwaj. The facts of the present case and the facts of the ruling cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non- revisionists i.e. 2013 (14) SCC 81 titled Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2011 (4) SCC 363 titled Lanka Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2011 (3) Shim. LC 203 titled Karta Ram Gupta and another Vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma and 2011 (1) Shim. LC 597 titled Kishan Chand Vs. Ram Chand are different and distinguishable and are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case because in the ruling cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists the Advocate engaged by the party was not suffering from cancer. It is well settled law that parties cannot be penalized due to illness of Advocate. Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the ends of justice to allow revision petition and it is held that delay in filing the appeal was due to illness of Advocate who was appearing on behalf of revisionist. Hence point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (final order). 14. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is allowed and order of learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP camp at Bilaspur passed in CMP No. 173/6 of 2012 titled Ramesh Hans Vs. Hence point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No.2 (final order). 14. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is allowed and order of learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP camp at Bilaspur passed in CMP No. 173/6 of 2012 titled Ramesh Hans Vs. Km.Sudha Hans and others dated 23.12.2014 is set aside and application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed and delay is condoned in the ends of justice. Costs to the tune of Rs. 3000/- (Three thousands) is also imposed upon revisionist. Learned Additional District Judge Bilaspur will admit the appeal filed under Section 96 CPC and thereafter after hearing both the parties will dispose of appeal within three months because Civil Suit No. 110/1 of 2008 was instituted on 1.10.2008 and appeal requires expeditious disposal. Parties are directed to appear before learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin District Bilaspur HP on 4.4.2016. File of learned Additional District Judge Ghumarwin along with certify copy of order be sent forthwith. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding present revision petition and shall not effect merits of the case in any manner. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application if any also disposed of.