Amitav K. Gupta, J. - (1.) I.A. No.4758 of 2016 1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 396 days in preferring the present revision.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel that against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court the petitioner, due to wrong advise of the counsel, preferred appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge being Eviction Appeal No.5 of 2015. That in course of hearing the lower appellate court vide order dated 28.05.2016 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. That after obtaining certified copy of the said order the petitioner came and met his counsel on 25.06.206 in the High Court whereafter the counsel advised the petitioner to file the present revision. That the delay in filing the revision occurred due to preparation of the draft and the time taken in obtaining and collecting the documents. It is submitted by the counsel that there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner rather it is due to wrong advise of the counsel that he had preferred the appeal. It is prayed that if the delay is not condoned the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury as he has a good case.
(3.) Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that in fact earlier against the judgment and decree of eviction the petitioner had preferred civil revision. That a Bench of this High Court while affirming the judgment and decree was pleased to remit the matter to the court below on the limited question to give a finding on the question of partial eviction. Thereafter the court below, after giving an opportunity to the parties, recorded the finding that the partial eviction was not feasible and accordingly passed the judgment and decree of eviction. It is contended that the plea of the learned counsel that petitioner was not aware about the provision of law cannot be accepted. It has further been submitted that the decree has been executed and the petitioner has been evicted from the suit premises.;