JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition, is, directed against the impugned order of dismissal, made, upon, the aggrieved defendants' application, cast, under the provisions, of, Section 5, of, the Limitation Act, by the learned First Appellate Court. Through the afore application, the applicant, had, strived for condonation of delay, in challenging the verdict, hence decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, against, the defendants. 2. This Court would proceed to interfere, with, the impugned verdict, only upon, qua the learned court below, not meeting, an appropriate deference, to the explications, purveyed by the applicant, for, hence hers being precluded, to, within time, challenge, the verdict, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge, upon, Civil Suit RBT No.10-S/6 of 2014/11, (a) the learned court below had rendered, a, disaffirmative order, upon, the requisite application, and, the afore order, was, rested upon, (b) want of the counsel, engaged by the applicant, not stepping into the witness box, for proving the averments, cast, in the application, vis-a-vis, the applicant, remaining uninformed, by the afore counsel, (b) and, the medical slip, borne in Ext. AW-1/A, disclosing therein the medical reasons, besetting, the, applicant, for hers, hence being precluded, to, earlier institute the appeal, against, the impugned verdict, before the learned First Appellate Court, being not amenable, for meeting, of any credence thereto, given theirs, being not proven, by the Doctor concerned, who, issued them. However, for the reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, the, afore reason(s) warrant theirs' being dis-countenanced, (a) the applicant, while stepping into witness box, rendering a testification, vis-a-vis, her counsel, not within time, making any intimation to her, vis-a-vis, the fate, of, the afore civil suit, (b) hers throughout the period, since, the pronouncement, made, against her, by the learned Civil Judge, remaining unwell, and, hers in proof of her ailment, tendering prescription slips, respectively borne in Ext. PW-1/A, in Ext. PW-1/B, in Ext. PW-1/C, and, in Ext. PW-1/A, in Ext. PW-1/B, in Ext. PW-1/C, and, in Ext. PW-1/D, hence into evidence, (c) hers' disclosing qua hers remaining under treatment for depression, and, an intimation, vis-a-vis, the fate of the afore civil suit, being meted, to her, only after 8 to 9 months, since the, apt, decision being recorded, upon, the afore civil suit, (d) and, though the afore testification, embodied in her, examination-in-chief, was strived, to, be shattered, through hers' being subjected to, the, ordeal, of, cross-examination, by the learned counsel for the defendants, and, wherein(s), suggestion(s) appertaining qua the counsel, engaged by the applicant, making within time, an intimation to her, vis-a-vis, the decision, being recorded, upon, the afore civil suit concerned, by the learned trial Judge concerned, rather stood purveyed, (e) and, yet, with hers denying the afore suggestion(s), (f) and, also hers' denying suggestions, put to her, qua hers deposing falsely, vis-a-vis, hers' being beset with depression. In aftermath, the effect(s) of all the afore suggestions, meted to her, and, hers' meting disaffirmative answers thereto, is, qua hence the learned court below being, enjoined, to, conclude qua her testimony, in her examination-in-chief, being not adequately shattered, (f) and, also hence when there was no necessity, for the learned court below, to insist, qua hers ensuring, the, stepping into the witness box, of, her duly engaged counsel, yet, the learned court below, has, unnecessarily insisted, upon, the applicant, qua the latter ensuring, the, stepping into witness box, of, her duly engaged counsel, (i) despite, reiteratedly, the learned counsel, for the non-applicant, making, a, minimal effect, to, scatter the vigor(s), of, her requisite testification, appertaining, to hers, remaining unintimated, by her duly engaged counsel, vis-a-vis, the fate of the civil suit concerned, (ii) hence it was insagacious, for, the learned trial Judge, to, not mete any credence thereto, (iii) and, also when she had in her examination-in-chief, testified qua hers being gripped, for a long time with depression, and, when, in, proof thereof, she tendered, Ext. AW-1/A, to, Ext. AW-1/D, into evidence besides when the afore exhibits, are, not suggested nor stand proven, to, be ingrained with any vice, of, any fabrication, (v) thereupon hence the afore exhibits acquired truth, hence it was insagacious, for, the learned trial Judge, to, yet proceed to insist, for, ensuring, of, proofs thereof, through hers, ensuring, the, stepping into, the, witness box, of, the doctor concerned. 3. 3. For the forgoing reasons, there is merit in the instant petition, and, it is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court, on, 20.9.2019. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 4. Any observation made herein above, shall not, be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned first appellate Court, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove.