The court may condone delay in filing a revision petition if the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances, and if the nature of the suit indicates that parties are fighting at arms length.

1. Heard both. Niggard and bereft of details, a resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

O.S.No.595 of 2004 was decreed ex-parte for the second time, as against which an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was filed to get the ex-parte decree set aside and that application was dismissed, as against which a revision was filed before this Court. However, that revision was disposed of observing that CMA would lie against the order of dismissal of that application. Thereafter, CMA.SR. was filed with a delay of 224 days on the ground of pregnancy of the lady Advocate. Whereupon after hearing both sides, the application was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and it is not a wilful one. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, earlier a lady Advocate appeared for the petitioner and she failed to pursue the matter swiftly and promptly, which resulted in the delay. In fact, she became pregnant and because of that, she could not attend to her work and thereafter alone, a different Advocate was engaged and the matter was pursued further. Wherefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for condoning the delay.

3. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that already the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC in the E.P. filed by the respondent herein for executing the ex-parte decree and in that, enquiry is going on and the revision petitioner also filed one another suit challenging the very ex-parte decree passed and in such a case, there is no genuineness on the part of the revision petitioner in prosecuting the matter.

4. The point for consideration is as to whether the delay could be condoned. At this juncture, I would like to point out that the suit itself is one for redemption of mortgage and the revision petitioner tried incessantly in contesting the matter, but no doubt there are laches on the part of the revision petitioner. The reasons as found set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition, is that a lady Advocate who was engaged by the revision petitioner herein earlier for filing the CMA, became pregnant and she could not deal with the matter properly; whereupon he was constrained to engage another Advocate. The Lower Court presumably expected a supporting affidavit from the lady Advocate which in my opinion was not required. Once a party engages one other Advocate and prosecuting the matter, then he cannot be expected to approach the former Advocate to file an affidavit and normally lawyers filing affidavit is something not contemplated in the litigative process. The Lower Court, no doubt, referred to the pendency of the application under Section 47 of the CPC. I am of the view that since the suit itself is for redemption and the parties are fighting at arms length, one more opportunity could have been given by the appellate Court which he failed to do so. Hence I am of the view that by awarding a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable by the revision petitioner to the respondent, the delay could be condoned. The cost shall be paid within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; whereupon the delay shall stand condoned. Whereupon, the CMA shall be numbered and disposed of within a period of one month thereafter.

5. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.