A litigant who has acted with diligence should not be penalized for a bona fide mistake made by their advocate, such as filing an application in the wrong forum, especially if such a mistake would render their legal remedies infructuous.

1. This revisional application has been filed by a defendant in a Title Suit instituted for his eviction. The said suit was decreed against the defendant, the applicant herein, on January 15, 2025. The judgment and decree of eviction was carried in appeal by the applicant and an order of stay was obtained from the Appellate Court on the condition that the applicant herein would continue to pay the monthly occupational charge and the arrears which had accrued by that time.

2. This interim order protecting the possession of the applicant herein was made on December 6, 2025, by the Appellate Court for a period of three months, subject to the fact that the applicant did not cause any default in making the payment.

3. The period of three months was to expire on March 6, 2026. In terms of the Appellate Court’s order, the applicant has deposited the arrears and had been depositing the monthly occupational charges without any default.

4. Since the interim order of protection was to expire on March 6, 2026, the Advocate appointed by the applicant, due to a bona fide mistake, filed an application for extension of the interim order before the Executing Court on March 6, 2026.

5. Realizing the mistake, an application for extension of the interim order of December 6, 2025, was filed by the applicant before the correct forum i.e., the Appellate Court on March 25, 2026.

6. The Appellate Court, by an order of April 16, 2026, dismissed such application for extension, holding that the interim order had already lapsed on March 6, 2026, and that application for extension of interim order could not be entertained after expiry of the interim order. It is this order of April 16, 2026, which has been assailed in this revisional application.

7. The matter was mentioned on the ground of urgency as the learned Executing Court had fixed the matter on April 30, 2026, for taking further steps to execute the decree, on account whereof this matter has been taken, out of turn.

8. The order passed by the Appellate Court, which is impugned in this revisional application, cannot be faulted, as it has rightly held that the application for extension filed by the applicant before it on March 25, 2026, was on the premise that the interim order of December 6, 2025, was still subsisting. The premise, as held by the Appellate Court; “was absolutely incorrect”; as the interim order had expired on March 6, 2026. Thus, this finding is absolutely correct and cannot be questioned.

9. The issue, however, remains as to whether the applicant could have been faulted for the lawyer’s lapse and/or inadvertent error in filing the application for extension before the wrong forum. In the event, such interim order is not rejuvenated or passed afresh, the appeal, which the applicant has filed within time and has been duly admitted by the Appellate Court, will become infructuous, rendering the applicant remediless.

10. It appears from the records that the applicant has pursued his remedies with diligence and has acted in accordance with and in due deference to, the order of the Appellate Court in depositing the arrears as well as the monthly occupational charges. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to discredit the applicant and not permit him a remedy of questioning the judgment and decree of January 15, 2025.

11. In these circumstances, it would be prope