ORDER : Heard learned counsel of the petitioners on the point of limitation being I.A. No. 6813 of 2022. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners being aggrieved with the order of Learned Principal District Judge, Giridih passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 01 of 2015 dated 12.08.2016 wrongly filed a W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 instead of filing revision against the impugned order which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 03.09.2019 with liberty to the petitioners to approach before the appropriate forum. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioners are plaintiffs in title suit No. 63 of 1998 which was decreed ex-parte against the defendants/(opposite parties herein) vide judgment and decree dated29.06.2001. The opposite parties herein filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC before the Munsif Giridih which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 2013 and rejected vide order dated 20.12.2014 therefore the appellants (opposite parties herein) filed the Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2015 which was allowed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Giridih by the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 against which the petitioners wrongly filed W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016. 4. It is further submitted that after disposal of W.P. (C) No. 5777 of 2016, the petitioners filed this revision as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court on 26.02.2020. 5. It is further submitted that as per stamp report, there is a delay of 1203 days in filing the present revision but since the petitioners were pursuing his case in a wrong forum for more than three years therefore the period taken in the course of pendency of the matter before the wrong forum has to be excluded from computation of limitation period in view of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 6. It is further submitted that from the date of passing of order in W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 decided on 03.09.2019 and the actual filing date of revision on 26.02.2020, there is delay of about 60 days in filing this civil revision. 6. It is further submitted that from the date of passing of order in W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 decided on 03.09.2019 and the actual filing date of revision on 26.02.2020, there is delay of about 60 days in filing this civil revision. The petitioners explained the cause of delay in the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 6813 of 2022 at para 7 that since the date of passing of the order in W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 dated 03.09.2019, the petitioner who was doing pairvi of the case on behalf of all the petitioners fell seriously ill and was suffering from Typhoid therefore after recovery and as per the medical advice on 25.02.2020 obtained certified copy of the order and instantly filed this revision and there is no deliberate in action on the part of the petitioners therefore delay caused in filing this revision was beyond the control of the petitioners therefore the delay may be condoned and this revision may be allowed and be admitted for hearing on merits. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel-Mr. Niranjan Kumar appearing on behalf of opp. parties has vehemently opposed the contention raised regarding delay in filing this revision and submitted that the ground taken by the petitioners about his illness is false and concocted one and no medical certificate has been filed by the petitioners to substantiate their plea that he was prevented from filing this revision in time due to sufficient cause. 8. It is further submitted that the title suit No. 63 of 1998 is restored by the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Giridih in Miss. Appeal No. 01 of 2015 and has been registered on its original number and pending for the evidence of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have suffered no prejudice from the ex-parte decree passed in the case and it is in the ends of justice that the suit may be decided on merits. The reason for delay in filing this revision is also not sufficient therefore this revision is fit to be dismissed on the point of limitation itself. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 10. It appears that there is inordinate delay in filing this revision petition in spite of observation given by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 decided on 03.09.2019. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 10. It appears that there is inordinate delay in filing this revision petition in spite of observation given by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 decided on 03.09.2019. The petitioner has taken a general and usual excuse about his illness on the ground that he was suffering from typhoid which is after passing the order in W.P.(C) No. 5777 of 2016 but no medical certificate has been brought on record therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause to file this civil revision within time. 11. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision is dismissed as time barred.