( 1 ) THE petitioner of the present Civil Revision Application is the original defendant of H. R. P. Suit No. 2243 of 1982. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs of the said suit. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for getting decree of possession of the suit premises which is situated in Jamalpur area of the city of Ahmedabad.

( 2 ) IN the aforesaid sit the defendant had engaged the advocate to defend the suit. However, that advocate had subsequently retired from the suit proceedings. Ultimately the suit was decided ex-parte and decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on 11-8-1989. Against the said ex-parte decree the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Bench of Small Cause Court, Ahmedabad. Since there was delay of about 7 months and 21 days, the petitioner had filed a separate application for condonation of delay along with the said appeal. As per the averments made in the said application for condonation of delay, the petitioner came to know about the said ex-parte decree on or about 28-4-1990. The petitioner was not informed about the ex-parte decree by her advocate. The Appellate Bench after hearing the concerned advocates ultimately passed the impugned order rejecting the application for condonation of delay on 28-9-1990. Thus, by the impugned order dated 28-9-1990 passed below the application exh. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1990, the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected by the Appellate Bench. The said order dated 28-9-1990 passed by the Appellate Bench bellow the application exh. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1990 is impugned in the present Civil Revision Application at the instance of the present petitioner.

( 3 ) IT is required to be noted that the present Civil Revision Application was admitted by this Court about a decade back and interim relief was granted and is operating since admission of the present Civil Revision Application.

( 4 ) MS. P. P. Laheri, learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Appellate Bench has taken into consideration irrelevant factors while deciding the application for condonation of delay and the Appellate Bench has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in a proper manner. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that initially the original defendant had engaged one advocate to defend the suit. But he had retired from the suit proceedings and under the circumstances the suit went on undefended and the Appellate Bench should have condoned the delay caused in filing the aforesaid appeal.

( 5 ) IN paragraph no. 2 of the application for condonation of delay which was submitted by the petitioner before the Appellate Bench the averment is made that the advocate of the petitioner had assured the petitioner that as and when it is necessary the power of attorney holder of the petitioner would be informed about the date of the suit proceedings. Since no intimation was given by the advocate for the petitioner to the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and the petitioner never knew that her advocate has retired from the suit proceedings, the suit went on ex-parte.

( 6 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner further submitted that when the power of attorney holder of the petitioner went to see the advocate he was not given any reply and ultimately the power of attorney holder came to know about the ex-parte decree only on 24-8-1990. Under the circumstances, the delay caused in preferring the appeal was required to be condoned by the Appellate Bench.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the deed of power of attorney was not produced before the Trial Court. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that Execution Application No. 11 of 1990 was filed for obtaining the possession of the suit premises and at that stage only the petitioner had moved the Appellate Bench by filing the application for condonation of delay.

( 8 ) IT is required to be n