The court held that the delay in filing the revision petition should be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, as the petitioner had acted in good faith based on the advice of his counsel and there was no malafide or recklessness on the part of the petitioner.

( 1 ) BY the present application filed under Section 5 read with Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the petitioner is seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 20th March, 1991 passed by the Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi against the petitioner herein. The petitioner was advised to file the appeal against the said judgment and decree and the said appeal was filed within the period of limitation. When the appeal came up for hearing on 5th February, 1993 before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, an objection was raised about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal arose from the judgment and decree in a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The petitioner made a statement before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file a revision petition in the. appropriate Court. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with permission to the petitioner to file a revision petition in the appropriate Court. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 5th February, 1993 and the revision petition along with the present application for condonation of delay was filed. There has been a delay of about two years in preferring the revision petition before this Court.

( 3 ) DURING the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 14 (1) and (2) of the Limitation Act are applicable to the facts of the case, the said Section reads as under:-

" (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another Civil proceeding, whether in a Court against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another Civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. "

( 4 ) IN support of the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is contended that the basing on the legal advise which he has received from his Counsel in good faith, his Counsel has preferred an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi instead of preferring revision before this Court.

( 5 ) ON 26th May, 1993 when the matter came up before this Court (Usha Mehra, J.) Counsel for the respondent had raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground that the same is barred by time and the mistaken advice of the lawyer is no ground to condone the delay particularly when nothing has been alleged as to how the lawyer gave the mistaken advice, nor any affidavit in this respect has been filed with this revision petition.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the affidavit of Shri Arun Maitri, Advocate who was prosecuting the case of the petitioner in the Trial Court as well in the Appellate Court. It has been specifically averred by the learned Counsel that an appeal on behalf of Shri Krishan Lal was filed before the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi which was registered as R. C. A. No. 11 / 91 titled as Krishan Lal v. Shri Hanuman and the same was filed under the bonafide belief that the appeal is maintainable and immediately after realising the bona fide mistake. Co