Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved, in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, the civil suit instituted by petitioner -plaintiff Sham Lal son of Ram Sarup(for brevity "the plaintiff") against respondent -defendant Jai Kishan son of Ram Sarup (for short "the defendant") for a decree of permanent injunction, was dismissed by the trial court by way of judgment and decree dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P -1). Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed the first appeal (Annexure P -2) along with the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 35 days' in filing the appeal. The first Appellate Court did not condone the delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay by virtue of impugned order dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure P -3).
(2.) THE petitioner -plaintiff did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order(Annexure P -3), invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
(3.) AS is evident from the record that, the petitioner -plaintiff has filed the application for condonation of delay of 35 days' in filing the appeal on the ground that he was suffering from Typhoid and remained confined to bed from 18.11.2011 to 24.11.2011. Thereafter, he could not attend his work due to weakness and severe cervical pain. In this manner, the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal has occurred. He has filed an affidavit and medical certificate in this relevant context. However, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the first Appellate Court.;