Mistake on account of wrong advice of a counsel does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay, and expeditious and speedy relief is expected under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 11. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi in which the prayer for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was granted whilst the prayer for damages was rejected. This Revision has been filed on 17. 7. 2001, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The grounds urged for condoning the delay reads thus:

"2. That inadvertently the previous counsel of the petitioner approached the appellate court wrongly for the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner/applicant. 3. That though the appeal was filed in time but the same was filed in a wrong court. 4. That delay in filing the present Revision Petition is not attributed to the petitioner/applicant but due to filing of the wrong appeal filed by the previous counsel of the petitioner/applicant. 5. That the petitioner/applicant should not suffer for mistake of his counsel and the petitioner should be heard on merit. "

( 2 ) THE Appeal appears to have been filed on 16. 3. 2000 and was dismissed on 9. 5. 2001. Section 6 (3) of the Specific Relief Act is explicit in terms, and states that

"no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed". It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how this provision was overlooked.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH sufficient opportunity has been granted, the Petitioner has failed to disclose any jurisdictional error committed by the Trial Court. His arguments in essence are in the form of a challenge to the findings reached by the Trial Court but this Court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction. It is thus beyond the scope of a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC.

( 4 ) SO far as the condoning of delay is concerned learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on a Judgment of Hon ble Mr. Justice Arun Madan in Krishan Lal vs. Hanuman, 53 (1994) DLT 360. The learned Judge has taken note of previous decisions of this Court as well as the other High Courts, and has crystalised their ratio to the effect that a mistake on account of wrong advice of a counsel does not constitute sufficient cause. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment read thus:

"10. In view of the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay and in the interests of substantial justice delay deserves to be condoned. Learned Counsel for the respondent has controverted the stand of the petitioner on the ground that there exists no ground for condoning delay in view of the fact that the petitioner was not deligent in pursing his remedy and that he was aware that revision lies against the impugned judgment and decree but instead of pursing the correct remedy of filing the revision petition had filed appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi with liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the law. He has also contended that the petitioner has not taken any specific objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit under the Specific Relief Act. He has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the Specific Relief, 1963, which deals with suit by person dispossessed without his consent of immovable property. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. Relying on this provision, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since there is specific bar to the filing of appeal from any order or decree, the same should not have been filed and, therefore, in the absence of good faith and sufficient cause which has not been specifically mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the present application is not maintainable. In support of