1. Heard counsel for the parties on the limitation matter.

2. It appears that there has been abnormal delay in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal. However, it appears that earlier under legal advice an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was filed against the ex-parte order in question and it was kept pending for a pretty long time. The order was passed on 26.8.1992 against which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed and finally this application was disposed of and dismissed on 29.3.1996. The court while dismissing this application held that the application itself was not maintainable. A revision was also filed by the appellant against this order and when at the time of admission it was found that it was not maintainable the same was withdrawn and accordingly this appeal is being pursued.

3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that because of incorrect and improper legal advice, the appellant filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in good faith and until and unless, the application was dismissed the party could not know that he had to seek any other remedy. So this delay during which period the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C