JUDGMENT : A.N. Verma, J. This is a Plaintiff's application in revision directed against orders passed by the courts below dismissing the Plaintiff-applicant's suit with special costs. 2. The Plaintiff's suit had been dismissed by the learned Judge, Small Causes, Ballia. While dismissing the suit, the learned Judge, Small Causes, also awarded Rs. 1000/-as special cost. The amount was delivered on March 18, 1976. 3. The Plaintiff-applicant filed a revision against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court which was barred by limitation. The Plaintiff-applicant had filed the Revision along with the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In the application for condonation of delay, it was asserted that the certified copy of the judgment had been applied for on 22-3-1976, i.e., within four days of the passing of the judgment. The copy was made ready on 31-5-1976. It was alleged in the application for condonation of delay that the clerk of the applicant's counsel had obtained the copy and misplaced it somewhere in the files. The applicant came to know about it only on 29-5-1976. The Revision was filed immediately thereafter. The Plaintiff applicant stated that under the circumstances he was totally innocent and that the delay was occasioned on account of circumstances beyond his control. This application has been rejected by the learned District Judge, Basti, by his order dated 9-7-1976. The learned District Judge has observed that if the applicant made the clerk of his counsel his agent for taking copy, the applicant should suffer for the laches of the clerk. The other ground on which the learned Judge has rejected the application of the applicant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is that if the copy was missing, the Revision could be filed within time with another copy. 4. Having rejected the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned District Judge also dismissed the revision itself as barred by limitation. It is against the aforesaid orders that the present Revision has been filed by the Plaintiff-applicant. 5. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hanuman Das v. Pirthvi Nath 1956 AWR 455 in which it has been held that negligence of a lawyer or his clerk may be enough to constitute sufficient cause for the failure to initiate proceedings within the time prescribed. 5. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Hanuman Das v. Pirthvi Nath 1956 AWR 455 in which it has been held that negligence of a lawyer or his clerk may be enough to constitute sufficient cause for the failure to initiate proceedings within the time prescribed. It has been held that in each case the question is one of degree of negligence, the overriding consideration being doing of substantial justice. Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant's application has been dismissed by the learned District Judge in disregard of the judicial pronouncements as regards the extent to which a litigant must be held bound by the acts of commissions and omissions of his counsel or clerk while disposing off an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel also contended that the finding of the court below is perverse and the discretion exercised by it is arbitrary and non-judicial. 6. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand urged that the learned District Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction, that the applicant did not explain every day's delay in filing the Revision and that the court below was justified in dismissing the said Revision as barred by time. 7. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that the learned District Judge has refused to condone the delay on the grounds which are Unsustainable in law, that on the facts asserted in the applicant's affidavit which were not controverted by any affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff opposite party no court could have refused to condone the delay. The learned District Judge has not exercised his discretion in accordance with law and has thus acted with illegality and material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction. 8. The undisputed facts are that the judgment of the trial court was delivered on March 18, 1976. The applicant got an application filed through his counsel for the certified copies of the judgment and orders passed by the trial court on 22-3-1976 i.e., within four days of the delivery of judgment. 8. The undisputed facts are that the judgment of the trial court was delivered on March 18, 1976. The applicant got an application filed through his counsel for the certified copies of the judgment and orders passed by the trial court on 22-3-1976 i.e., within four days of the delivery of judgment. The applicant stated in his affidavit, a certified copy of which was produced before me at the hearing of the Revision, that when on 21-5-1976, he approached his counsel's clerk for finding out whether the copies had been obtained and the Revision had been filed, he was informed that the clerk had misplaced the certified copy, which had been obtained by the clerk of the counsel for the applicant earlier. The applicant asserted in his affidavit that he was completely innocent and that when on coming to know of the fact that the Revision had not been filed till then on account of certified copy having been misplaced by the clerk of his counsel, he immediately took the necessary steps and the very next day i.e., on 22-5-1976, the Revision was filed. The applicant, as has been stated in his affidavit could not file the aforesaid Revision within time on account of circumstances which were beyond his control. The learned District Judge dismissed the application of the applicant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and passed an order as follows: This is a revision against an order dated 18-3-1976 in S.C.C. Suit No. 145 of 1973 of the Civil Judge (J.S.C.C.) Ballia. It was prosecuted on 22-5-1976 with a certified copy in procuring which time was spent from 22-3-1976 to 31-3-1976 (both inclusive). The Revision was apparently time passed. Application was moved for condonation of the delay. The ground taken was that the copy received From the Copying Department was misplaced by the clerk of the Learned Counsel which clerk could produce it only on 21-5-1976. I do not think that this is sufficient cause for the delay. In the first instance, the applicant made the clerk his agent for taking and keeping the copy, he should suffer for the lapses of the, agent also. Secondly, I do not see why, if the copy was missing, the Revision could not be filed in time without the copy with a prayer for filing the copy later. The application for condonation is, therefore, rejected. Secondly, I do not see why, if the copy was missing, the Revision could not be filed in time without the copy with a prayer for filing the copy later. The application for condonation is, therefore, rejected. (Sd.) J.D.N. Sahi District Judge, Ballia 9-7-1976. 9. The learned District Judge has observed that if the applicant made the clerk of his counsel his agent, the applicant should suffer for it. This reasoning is wholly unsustainable. It is not every mistake, act or omission of the litigant's counsel or his clerk for which the litigant has to suffer. As held by this Court in the case of Hanuman Das v. Pirthvi Nath 1956 AWR 455, that negligence of a lawyer or his clerk is not always a ground for refusing to condone the delay. The view of the learned District Judge that the applicant must suffer for the lapses of the clerk of the applicant's counsel is clearly contrary to the view of this Court expressed in the above decision. 10. The second ground on which the learned District Judge has rejected the application of the applicant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is that the applicant could have filed another copy, if the first copy Was misplaced. This is an obvious misreading of the affidavit of the applicant. The applicant has categorically stated in his affidavit that he came to know of the fact that the certified copy had got misplaced by his counsel for the first time only on 21-5-1976, and the Revision mm filed the very next day. Had the applicant known about the fact that the certified copy has been misplaced before 21-5-1976, he could be blamed for not applying for another copy and filing it within time. As facts stand, the applicant came to know of the fact that the copy had become misplaced for the first time on 21-5-1976 and the very next day he filed the Revision i.e., on 22-5-1976. 11. On the facts mentioned above, neither of the two grounds on which the learned District Judge has rejected the application of the Defendant applicant u/s 5 Limitation Act is valid or sustainable. In my view, the applicant was not guilty of negligence. He was prosecuting the Revision with due deligence. The learned District Judge has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the application of the applicant u/s 5 Limitation Act. 12. In my view, the applicant was not guilty of negligence. He was prosecuting the Revision with due deligence. The learned District Judge has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the application of the applicant u/s 5 Limitation Act. 12. The learned District Judge has acted with illegality and material irregularity in dismissing the Defendant applicant's Revision as barred by time. 13. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the case reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 at page 364 in support of the proposition that every day's delay had to be explained and that the applicant has not done that. There is no dispute about the proposition of law, but on the facts of this case, it is clear that the applicant has explained the entire delay. The Defendant-applicant has categorically stated that he discovered that the copy had become misplaced on 21-5-1976 and he filed the Revision on 22-5-1976. The applicant had, therefore, explained every day's or at least the entire delay. The applicant was justified in assuming that the Revision must have been filed before he approached his counsel on 21-5-1976, as he had already applied for certified copies of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court within four days of the passing thereof. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Defendant-applicant has not explained the entire delay. 14. In the result, the Revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge on 9-7-1976, rejecting the application of the applicant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as the impugned order given by the learned District Judge dated 9-7-1976 rejecting the Revision itself are set aside. The applicant's application for condonation of delay is allowed. The Revision filed by the applicant before the learned District Judge is restored to its original number. The learned District Judge will now dispose off the Revision filed by the applicant on merits. The parties will bear their own costs.