JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 28.03.2015 delivered in Title Appeal No.28 of 2013 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5. 3. It is to be noted here that the said judgment dated 28.03.2015 is a consequential order of the order dated 28.03.2015 delivered in Civil Misc. (Condo) 80 of 2013 whereby the petition that was filed under Order XLI Rule 3A of the CPC for condonation of delay of 59(fifty nine) days was dismissed. As stated earlier, as consequence of dismissal of the prayer for condonation, the appeal got dismissed. 4. Now by this appeal fundamentally the legality of the order dated 28.03.2015 delivered in Civil Misc. (Condo) 80 of 2013 has been challenged inasmuch as the analogy as provided in the impugned order has been critically questioned by the appellant. If the order dated 28.03.2015 as passed in Civil Misc. (Condo) 80 of 2013 is interfered with and set aside and its consequence that would be is that the appeal has to be restored and readmitted for hearing. 5. At the time of admitting this appeal the following substantial question of law was framed by this court: “Whether the appellate Court was proper and justified in dismissing the first appeal on the ground of delay?” Even though the leave was granted to the appellant to raise any other substantial question of law, but Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants has not urged for framing any additional substantial question of law. 6. According to this court, the substantial question of law as framed by this court by the order dated 17.09.2015 takes care of the fundamental question as emerged in this appeal. That may be probable reason why Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel has not urged this court for framing any additional substantial question of law. 7. There is no dispute that by filing an application the appellant herein has urged the first appellate court to condone the delay of 59 days on the ground that when the judgment was pronounced on 10.12.2013, the appellant, who was supervising the case, visited the office of the counsel who was representing the appellants. 7. There is no dispute that by filing an application the appellant herein has urged the first appellate court to condone the delay of 59 days on the ground that when the judgment was pronounced on 10.12.2013, the appellant, who was supervising the case, visited the office of the counsel who was representing the appellants. After 3/4 days of pronouncement of the judgment, the engaged counsel informed that the suit was ‘decreed’. The said appellants were opposing the suit, but the supervising appellant got impression that the suit was dismissed and they won the case. But it was just the opposite. But the perception continued till she, the supervising appellant, discovered the real state of affairs. When she realized that she lost the case she came to the said counsel. Only on 27.03.2013 when she attended the office of the counsel for further discussion she realized that she lost in the suit. Immediately, the engaged counsel instructed her to take preparation for memorandum of appeal so that the appeal can be filed. Under the wrong impression, she did not take any initiative in the first phase of the matter. As a result according to the appellant the said delay could take place. 8. It has been categorically submitted by Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel that from reading of this petition filed for condonation of delay it would surface that the delay was wholly unintentional. It was categorically asserted by Mr. R. G. Chakraborty, learned counsel having referred to paragraph-5 of the said petition that the appellant is an unlettered lady and as such she had no capacity to understand the meaning of the word ‘decreed’. Thus she misunderstood and for that reason, the aforesaid delay had taken place. 9. Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no wrong or infirmity in the order because the explanation as provided in the petition is so inadequate that it does not serve the purpose to constitute the sufficient cause. Moreover, if the said petition is keenly read, it would be apparent that the explanation is a ploy and it is not bona fide cause. 10. Moreover, if the said petition is keenly read, it would be apparent that the explanation is a ploy and it is not bona fide cause. 10. Having appreciated the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that, first the appellant is an unlettered lady, she is not accustomed to the legal jargons and that apart she was not properly explained the outcome of the suit. When she realized that she lost in the suit and she was going to suffer unless the judgment passed by the trial court was challenged. She immediately followed the instruction of the counsel. But in the meanwhile the said delay had taken place. 11. According to the court this is not an inordinate delay. Having regard to the equity and for purpose of substantial justice, the said delay is liable to be condoned and accordingly, the said delay is condoned hereby. In the result, the order dated 28.03.2015 delivered in Civil Misc. (Condo) 80 of 2013 is set aside and quashed. 12. Per consequent, the judgment dated 28.03.2015 as delivered in Title Appeal No.28 of 2013 is also interfered with and recalled. The appeal be placed for admission before the first appellate court in view of this order. Since the parties have appeared before this court, it would be expedient for the parties, if a date is fixed for appearance before the first appellate court. The parties shall appear on 11.07.2018 before the court of the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala without fail. It is made clear that no further notice would be issued to the parties. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Draw the decree accordingly and send down the records thereafter.