A.B.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) BY means of this sixteen year old writ petition the pe­titioner, a defendant in an Original Suit before the Court below, has sought quashing of an order dated 12.11.1980 of the District Judge, Saharanpur condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) A suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed by the plaintiff Mangli (respond­ent No. 2) in the Court of Munsif, Shahjehanpur against the petitioner (defend­ant). The same was dismissed in default of the-plaintiff. A restoration application was filed by the plaintiff which too dismissed in default on 1.10.1977. Thereafter an ap­plication was moved for restoration of the said restoration application on 14.4.1978 which was rejected on 11.8.1978. Against the said rejection an appeal was filed by the plaintiff on 3.10.1978 i.e. beyond limitation, by five days, excluding the period spent in obtaining certified copy. An application for condonation of delay with certificate of a medical practitioner indicating illness of the plaintiff from 28.9.1978 to 2.10.1978, was filed. This application was opposed. The learned appellate Court recorded the statements of the parties, the concerned medical practi­tioner having died in the mean time. On a consideration of the entire material the said Court thought it a fit case to condone delay and accordingly admitted the appeal, sub­ject to payment of Rs. 251- as costs. It is this contention which is impugned in this writ petition. The question whether or not the plaintiff was ill during the relevant period was one of fact and was decided by the Court below on appraisal of evidence, re-appraisal whereof is not permissible or expedient in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The delay also was, after excluding the copying period of five days. The appellate Court, which was the best Judge of the situation, in exercis­ing its jurisdiction in accepting the plain­tiff's explanation did not act illegally or beyond his jurisdiction. The writ petition has no merit.
(3.) THE petition is accordingly dis­missed. The interim order dated 18.2.1981 is recalled. The trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the proceedings now very expeditiously, avoid adjournment unless absolutely unavoidable. No order as to costs.;