JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R K Bhatra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia in Money Appeal No. 1/2014, wherein a direction was issued to the petitioner to obtain necessary order from this court to proceed with the appeal. 3. The brief facts relevant for the purposes of this order is that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 12/2007, which was filed against the defendant, i.e. the Union Bank of India for realization of Rs. 3,94,561/- with interest thereon. In the said suit, the defendant bank, who is the respondent herein had filed a counter-claim valued at Rs. 5,62,075.40/-. By the judgment dated 23.7.2014, the suit of the petitioner was dismissed, but the counter-claim of the respondent herein was allowed. The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of the counter-claim had filed an appeal before this court which was registered as RFA No. 62/2014. It is projected that this court had admitted the said appeal by order dated 29.10.2014 and the execution of the decree which was impugned therein was stayed. However, as the suit of the petitioner was valued at below Rs. 5,00,000/-, the decree passed in the suit became appealable before the court of the learned District Judge, Tinsukia. Under the said background, the learned District Judge, Tinsukia had passed the impugned order dated 28.11.2014. The learned trial court was of the view that the said court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the petition for condonation of delay or the appeal and therefore, by allowing a chance to the petitioner to obtain direction from this court, the appeal filed before the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, was kept in abeyance. 4. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer, but on the legal principles, the learned counsel could not disagree that if the court, before which the appeal was filed had the territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction had the legal competance to entertain the appeal. 4. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer, but on the legal principles, the learned counsel could not disagree that if the court, before which the appeal was filed had the territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction had the legal competance to entertain the appeal. His further argument was that as both the appeal arose from the same judgment, the record of the suit has since been transmitted before this court and therefore, no purpose would be served to allow the appeal of the petitioner to be proceeded before the court of the learned District Judge and the matter could be taken up for analogous disposal by this court. 5. Having considered the rival arguments of both the sides, this court of the view that in terms of Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the learned District Judge had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal which is valued at not above Rs. 5,00,000/-. Further, if such an appeal is entertained by this court, the aggrieved party in the appeal would miss out the forum of this court for filing a second appeal or a revision before this court, as the case may be, against the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court. Therefore, when the District Judge, Tinsukia had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, it would be within his power and jurisdiction to entertain such appeal or any applications connected thereto, notwithstanding the pendency of any other appeal before this court or any other court. 6. In order to facilitate the availability of the trial court records before the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, this court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice to permit the petitioner herein to obtain the certified copies of the necessary documents from the trial court record and produce the same before the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, who would further proceed to hear the appeal on the basis of the certified copies. 7. The respondent herein may, if he so desires, either supplement the deficiencies in documents by furnishing copies of any other documents that has been omitted to be brought on record or file necessary petition with prayer before the said learned court to require the petitioner herein to supplement further documents on record and the learned District Judge, Tinsukia on receipt of such petition, pass necessary orders in this regard. 8. Accordingly, this court is inclined to hold that the learned District Judge, Tinsukia has committed jurisdictional error in not entertaining the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Having jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the learned First Appellate Court ought not to have and issued any direction to the petitioner to insist upon the petitioner to bring an order from this court to take up the appeal. The said learned court is directed to hear the parties and adjudicate the said petition bearing No. 1737/2014 which was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the connected appeal. As the said petition was filed in the 2014, the learned District Judge, Tinsukia will expedite the hearing of the said application and dispose of the said condonation application within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, this revision is allowed in terms of the observations made above. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of the learned District Judge, Tinsukia on 17.5.2017 on which date the parties will, without any further or separate notice for appearance.