The revision is against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dated 29. 1995 in I.A.No.427 of 1993 in unnumbered C.M.A.No. of 1993.

.2. The petitioner in his petition contends as follows:In the suit filed against the petitioner, temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court against the petitioner. The petitioner has instructed his advocate to file an appeal against the said order. The advocate informed him that he would inform the petitioner as soon as gets copy of the order. But, no communication has been received from the advocate. When contacted, the advocate informed him that he has sent a letter. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for copy and filed the appeal. There is a delay of 10 days. The delay is not wilful. It may be condoned.

3. The respondent in his count contends as follows:The allegation that the advocate informed the petitioner that he had already applied for copies, and informed him that he would write in due course is to be proved by him. The further allegation mat the advocate informed him that he has written a letter and that he has not received the said letter is not correct. There is delay in filing the c