R. N. Aggarwal ( 1 ) BISHAN Sarup, the respondent herein, was a tenant in a shop under Man singh. Man singh filed a suit for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he required the premises bona fide for reconstruction. A decree was passed in favour of the landlord which was finally upheld by the High Court and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises on or before 15th April 1961, the landlord was to restore possession of the shop after reconstruction. After the shops had been reconstructed the respondent filed an application for restoration of the possession of the shop. This application was contested by Man Singh on various grounds but his objections were rejected, He fought the litigation upto the High court but without success. After the case was decided againat Man Singh Chanda Singh filed objections alleging, inter alia, that he had purchased the vacant plot from Man Singh and built the shope thereon. He took a number of objections to the execution of the order, but his objections were dismissed on 20th July 1971. After the objections of Chanda singh were dismissed the third round of limiations started with the objections filed by the present appellants Asa Ram and Chela Ram on 20th August 1971. They pleaded that they had taken the shop on rent in 1970 from Chanda Singh without notice of the previous litigation and that they are not liable to vocate the premises. The objection petition of the appellants remained pending for 6 years and their objections were dismissed on 5th March 1976 by smt, Mamta Sehgal, Sub-Judge. Against the above order Asa Ram and Chela Ram filed a revision petition in the High Court. On the petition a notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted and mean while the execution proceedings were stayed. On 11th August 1976 the revision petition came up for consideration before Hon ble Mr. Justice H. L. Anand and he dimissed the petition with the following orders "heard. No ground to interfere Dismissed. "on 12th Aug. 1976 Asa Ram and Chela Ram filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge against the order of Smt. Memta Sehgal dated 5th March 1976. Along with the memorandum of appeal only true copy of the judgment of the Sub Judge was filed. No ground to interfere Dismissed. "on 12th Aug. 1976 Asa Ram and Chela Ram filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge against the order of Smt. Memta Sehgal dated 5th March 1976. Along with the memorandum of appeal only true copy of the judgment of the Sub Judge was filed. The appellants filed an application U/s 14 of the Limitation Act with a prayer that the time spent in prosecuting the revision petition be excluded in determining the period of limitation. It was alleged in the application that the revision petition had been filed inadvertantly and that it was only when the High Court held that the revision did not lie and only an appeal lay under order 43 rule I that the appellants had been advised to file the appeal. The certified copy of the Judgment of the sub-Judge was filed on 21st September 1976. The record of the appellate Judge shows that the copy was applied for on 13th August 1976 and it was ready on 14th September 1976. The copy was filed in Court, as already stated, on 21st September 1976. Shri O. P. Singha, Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal dismissed it as barred by time. Against the judgment of the additional District Judge the appellants have come in second appeal. The relevant portion section 14 of the Limitation Act reads as follows: 14 (1 ). In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with the diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defundant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. It is clear from a reading of the above provision that before a party can take advantage of section 14 it must show that it was prosecuting the other proceeding in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. It is clear from a reading of the above provision that before a party can take advantage of section 14 it must show that it was prosecuting the other proceeding in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. The appellants had in the application filed along with the appeal stated that the revision petition had been filed inadvertently and it was only when the High Court held that the revision did not lie and only an appeal lay that the appellants were advised to file the appeal. The above assertion is not borne out from the record. The order dated 11th August 1976 passed by Mr. Justice H. L. Anand does not show that the petition was dismissed for defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. It appears that it was dismissed on merits. There is nothing on the record indicating that the revision p3tition was filed under a bona fide mistake. The averment in the application is that it was filed inadvertently . According to the Chamber s Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word inadvertent means inattenrive, negligence, oversight. Even if the above explanation is believed, would bs far from being called a bona fide mistake, rather it implies negligence. Even if the time spent in prosecuting the revision petition is excluded even then the petition is barred by a few days. The certified copy of the order of the trial Judge was ready on 14th September 1976 but it was filed in the court only on 21st September 1976. The explanation given by the appellant Chela Ram is that he had been going to the copying Agency to inquire if the copy was ready and that he was not asked to come on 14th September 1976 for collecting the copy. I am not impressed with the above explanation of the appellants. On going through the record I find that the appellants have failed to show any sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the time before the District Judge. Consequently I uphold the judgment of the Additional District Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.