JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a revision application against the order dated 13-9-1976 by the learned Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, rejecting the objections filed by the revisionist in respect of sale of the property for realisation of dues. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The facts in brief are that the applicant, Iftikhar Hussain land taken loan of Rs. 2,000/- from Industries Department, had partly repaid the loan by paying Rs. 1,012.75 paise. The balance and interest amounting to Rs. 2,411.00 was demanded from him and on non-payment his house was auctioned on 5-2-1976, Against the auction, an objection was filed before the Commissioner on 4-5-1976 with application for condonation of delay on the ground that an injunction suit in the court of Munsif was pending and the objector was advised by his counsel to await decision in the injunction suit before filing objection before the Commissioner. The application and objection were dismissed by the learned Commissioner by the impugned order. 4. In the present revision, the objector has taken the grounds that the sale was against rule as 5-2-1976 was Sunday, that he had filed objection within 20 days before the Collector who did not pass any order, that the objection before the Commissioner was delayed due to legal advice given to the objector an mentioned above, that this delay ought to have been condoned and objection considered. 5. About the date of sale 5-2-1976 being Sunday, the learned counsel for the Industries Department has shown that it was Thursday. This has been verified and is correct. 6. About the objection alleged to have been filed before the Collector within 30 days, the objection has failed to show its existence by any evidence whatsoever, other than the affidavit, which too does not reveal the date on which and the authority before which the objection was actually presented. A certified copy of the objection could be filed, which was not done. Peculiarly enough, this ground was not taken before the learned Commissioner nor above fact was mentioned at that stage. Still in para 9 of the objector's affidavit dated 29-11-1976, it is stated that objection was filed before the Commissioner on 4-5-1976, that as civil suit was pending, the applicant did not file objection before the Commissioner but his objection was pending before the Collector. Still in para 9 of the objector's affidavit dated 29-11-1976, it is stated that objection was filed before the Commissioner on 4-5-1976, that as civil suit was pending, the applicant did not file objection before the Commissioner but his objection was pending before the Collector. This obvious contradiction remains unexplained and it appears to be a mere story that any objection was filed before the Collector in time. 7. Now the objections before the learned Commissioner along with application for condonation of delay remains to be considered. It has been argued by the counsel for the objector that a wrong advice by the counsel should have been accepted as sufficient cause. The learned counsel for the department has argued that the court did apply its mind and it was hid judicial discretion to condonation the delay or not. The counsel for the objector has cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1962 Alld. 407, which is to the effect that if no counter affidavit is filed, the averments in the affidavit would be presumed to be true. This position, indeed, has not been challenged but the effect of the averments has been challenged. The question is, even if the advice was to await the decision of the injunction suit, could it be a sufficient ground for condonation of delay? The injunction suit was for restraining the Government from confirming the sale held on 5-2-1976. There was no advice that due to pendency of the suit, the limitation would be extended. There is no specific provision for this, like the provision for extension of limitation by the period taken in obtaining copy of judgment appealed against. It is also plain that the advice was directed towards saving the expenses and effort in filing objection for the injunction suit could also succeed. However, the suit was dismissed on 26-4-1976. There were two alternative remedies, both to be taken in due time. Delay in either of them was at the risk of the objection. 8. The learned counsel has further referred to a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 749. Although the circumstances of that case differ, the principles made out may be quoted: "From the above observations it is clear that the words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party" (Para 30). Although the circumstances of that case differ, the principles made out may be quoted: "From the above observations it is clear that the words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party" (Para 30). 9. In Kunwar Rajendra Singh v. Raj Rajeshwar Bali, A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 276 the Judicial Committee observed as follows; "Mistaken advice given by a legal practitioner may, in the circumstances of a particular case give rise to sufficient cause within the section though there is certainly no general doctrine which saves parties from the result of wrong advice." 10. The learned counsel for the department has referred to a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1666 from which an important observation may be quote: "It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way". (A.I.R. 1971 Ker 211). 11. The above principles when applied to the present case, leave no doubt that the alleged mistake in legal advice cannot be considered bona fide. There is no denying the fact that there was pure and simple inaction on the part of the objector, without any satisfactory reason. The objector was just saving himself of the additional trouble of taking the alternative remedy in time and thereby saving expenses also. The circumstances of the present case are such that the mistaken advice, if any, does not give rise to sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act. As the learned Commissioner observed, the injunction suit did not act as a bar for filing the objection. The alleged cause for not filing the objection in time was more a device to save limitation in an underhand way than anything else. The advice as discussed earlier, cannot be in the nature of a legal advice, nor can it be a bona fide mistake in the legal advice. The objector chose to take the risk and so he cannot save himself from the consequences of the risk. 12. In the circumstances, the learned Commissioner was right in exercising his judicial direction to reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently the objections as well. The objector chose to take the risk and so he cannot save himself from the consequences of the risk. 12. In the circumstances, the learned Commissioner was right in exercising his judicial direction to reject the application for condonation of delay and consequently the objections as well. There was no error relating to exercise of jurisdiction and the revision has to be dismissed as without force. 13. In the result, the revision application is dismissed and the stay order passed earlier is vacated.