JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Sekhar Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. None appears for the remaining respondent, despite his counsel have entered in the appearance. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment of dismissal dated 08.05.2014 delivered in Title Appeal No.44 of 2013 by the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.2. The said judgment of dismissal is the outcome of rejection of the prayer made by the appellant for condoning the delay of 10 (ten) days. 3. At the time of admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by the order dated 11.12.2015: “Whether by not considering the cause assigned by the appellant herein the first appellate court acted perversely causing failure of substantial ends of justice?” 4. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, has fairly submitted that if the respondent who he represents is given opportunity to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay of 10(ten) days in case No. Civil Misc.131 of 2013, connected with Title Appeal No.44 of 2013, he would not oppose this appeal as the said appeal, being Title Appeal No.44 of 2013 arises from the preliminary judgment and decree respectively dated 02.04.2013 and 16.04.2013, delivered in T.S.(Part)90 of 2011 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. 5. Ms. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the appellant has readily agreed to that proposition as advanced by Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 6. Since the delay is only of 10(ten) days and there is a consensus between the parties, this court is of the view that the impugned judgment and the consequential decree dated 08.05.2014 delivered in Title Appeal No.44 of 2013 are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, those are set aside. The matter is remanded to the court of the Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.1, which court shall recommence the hearing of case No. Civil Misc.131 of 2013, connected with Title Appeal No.44 of 2013 for condoning the delay of 10(ten) days in filing the said title appeal. The respondents herein shall be provided opportunity to file their objection against the prayer for condonation of the delay of 10(ten) days, if they are so inclined. 7. Mr. The respondents herein shall be provided opportunity to file their objection against the prayer for condonation of the delay of 10(ten) days, if they are so inclined. 7. Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, at this stage, has submitted that he has lost contact with the respondent No.1 and, for that reason the first appellate court may be directed by this court to issue notice to the parties on fixing the date of recommencement of the proceeding. 8. Be that as it may, the first appellate court is directed to issue notice to the parties after appointing a date for recommencing the proceeding, being Civil Misc.131 of 2013, connected with Title Appeal No.44 of 2013 and to determine the proceeding in terms of the above direction and in accordance with law. In the result, this appeal stands allowed. Draw the decree accordingly.