N. N. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 19. 1. 85 recorded by Sessions Judge, Mathura (Shri G. S. Sharma) who dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1984 as barred by time and rejected the application of revisionist for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act. ( 2 ) DISPUTE relates to Bus No. U. S. O. 7062. According to the allegations of revisionist the bus was purchased Ort higher purchase basis by him from Canara Bank of Mathura. Installment of Rs. 45,000/- out of the total value of Rs. 1,59,000/- was paid by the revisionist who got himself registered as owner of the Bus and also secured a permit for plying that Bus. On 15. 8. 1983 the Station Officer, Goverdhan district Mathura found the vehicle plying in violation of the, Motor Vehicles Act and the vehicle was taken into custody of the police by him. ( 3 ) ON 16. 8. 1983 the driver of the Bus Sri Om Prakash was convicted and fined a sum of Rs. 100/- by the Magistrate concerned. ( 4 ) REVISIONIST applied for release of the vehicle in his favour in the court of learned Magistrate. That prayer was opposed by Sri Jagdish Prasad, opposite party No. 2 who alleged that the revisionist was simply an ostensible owner and the consideration flowed from him. Thus revisionist and the opposite party No. 2 are rival claimants of the bus and both of them entered into durable litigation in civil and criminal courts to secure the release of the bus. Jagdish Prasad got an injunction issued from Civil Judge, Mathura in civil suit No. 228 of 1979 restraining the revisionist from interfering with his possession. He successfully litigated the matter about the ownership of this Bus upto this Court. Various orders were passed by criminal courts which are not relevant for the disposal of this revision. The learned Magistrate released the Bus in favour of opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 20. 5. 1984. ( 5 ) THE revision was filed in this court (Criminal Revision No. 1162 of 1984) which was dismissed on 30. 10. 1984 with the observation that revision was not maintainable as an appeal could have lain against the impugned order. ( 6 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 47 of 1984 was preferred by the revisionist on 29. 11. 5. 1984. ( 5 ) THE revision was filed in this court (Criminal Revision No. 1162 of 1984) which was dismissed on 30. 10. 1984 with the observation that revision was not maintainable as an appeal could have lain against the impugned order. ( 6 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 47 of 1984 was preferred by the revisionist on 29. 11. 1984 in the Sessions Court, Mathura alongwith an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. ( 7 ) IT was averred in that application that under misconception of law the revision was filed in the High Court and the time spent in prosecuting the said revision was liable to be condoned. ( 8 ) THAT prayer was opposed by opposite party No. 2. The court below found that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Revisionist failed to discharge the onus which lay on him to establish that he was prosecuting the criminal case in good faith. Moreover, he could not even show that he filed the revision in High Court timely nor he could offer any explanation about the gap in between 30. 5. 1985 and 29. 11. 1984 when the appeal was filed. So the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with memo of appeal were dismissed as given above. ( 9 ) THIS revision was filed before me on 1. 3. 85 when the revisionist secured an ex parte order in his favour directing the release of the Bus in favour of registered owner on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Mathura. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the Opposite party No. 2 appeared and prayed for vacation of the ex parte stay order. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that revision itself be disposed of and the record need not be summoned. ( 11 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist was the owner in possession of the Bus; he was the registered owner and holder of permit also. ( 11 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist was the owner in possession of the Bus; he was the registered owner and holder of permit also. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the opposite party it was pointed out that it has been repeatedly held by civil court that revisionist was not the real owner and even part of consideration which he claimed to have advanced was not advanced by him and he has also been injuncted by Civil Judge, Mathura from interfering with the possession of opposite party No. 2 over the said vehicle and also from plying the Bus under that permit. ( 14 ) AS the record of the courts below is not before me, I ascertained from the counsel for the revisionist whether there was any affidavit annexed by him in support of his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That application is Annexure-Ill which is silent about the date when the revision was entertained by this court against the impugned order dated 30. 10. 1984. This application is also silent on the point as to why the appeal could not be filed just after rejection of revision on 30. 10. 1984. ( 15 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist pointed out that revisionist procured copy of order of revisional court on 5. 11. 1984 and the time spent by him in prosecuting proceedings in revision was to be excluded. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist also argued that the provisions of Section 5 and 14 of Limitation Act are to be liberally construed. ( 17 ) IN this connection he referred to Balbirsingh v. Bogh Singh1. ( 18 ) IN that case a First Appeal against the judgment of trial court could have lain directly to High Court but it was filed in the court of District Judge under some bona fide mistaken belief of the advocate concerned and so it was held that the delay in filing the appeal before proper forum should be condoned. ( 19 ) ON behalf of the opposite party No. 2 it was pointed but that a casual look at the order of Magistrate which is on record and is dated 30. 5. ( 19 ) ON behalf of the opposite party No. 2 it was pointed but that a casual look at the order of Magistrate which is on record and is dated 30. 5. 1984 shall go to disclose that the order of delivery of bus was drawn under Section 452 Cr. P. C. and even a casual look at Section 454, Cr. P. C. could have disclosed that this was an appealable order and not revisable order. Such mistake of the legal practitioner could not justify the exclusion of time of proceeding under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, because such proceeding was not bona fide and with due diligence. ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for opposite parties as well as learned court below have relied upon Devi Prasad and others v. State of U. P. and another2. It was observed at page 1276. It is true that bona fide advice given by a counsel after due care and attention may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay if acted upon by a party in good faith but it is not the law that the delay should invariably be condoned simply because it is asserted that it was caused on account of some wrong legal advice given by a counsel. ( 21 ) THE next authority relied upon has been reported in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee and others3 which posited: It is not open to the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, to question the findings of fact recorded by a subordinate court. Section 115 applies to cases involving questions of jurisdiction, i. e. questions regarding the irregular exercise or non exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court and is not directed against conclusion of law or fact in which questions of jurisdiction are not involved. ( 22 ) THE argument was that when the discretion has been exercised by the appellate court in favour of Sri Jagdish Prasad, opposite party No. 2 and it has been held that delay was not condonable, this Court should not interfere in exercise of revisional powers with such discretion. ( 22 ) THE argument was that when the discretion has been exercised by the appellate court in favour of Sri Jagdish Prasad, opposite party No. 2 and it has been held that delay was not condonable, this Court should not interfere in exercise of revisional powers with such discretion. ( 23 ) IMPORTANT considerations to be borne in mind while dealing with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as set )tit in Sohan v. Abdul Hameed Khan4 are: In dealing with an application under section 5 for condoning delay in filing appeal beyond the prescribed period it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations namely (1) the expiration of limitation for making appeal gives rise to a legal right in a favour of the decree holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties and this legal right should not be light heartedly disturbed and (2) if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown the applicant is not entitled as a matter of right to condonation of delay but discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit appeal. ( 24 ) IT was further argued that law is for the revisionist to show that with due diligence and bona fide he was prosecuting the proceedings in the revisional Court. He could not explain day to day delay which he had to explain. ( 25 ) I have carefully considered all these contentions. The simple point which falls to be determined in this revision is whether the revisionist has been able to satisfactorily explain the delay in between 30. 5. 84 and the date when he filed revision in this Court which was dismissed on 29. 11. 84. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist could not give the date when he filed revision in this court and there is absolutely no material on record to show that period so as to check as to whether the revision was filed within ninety days of the impugned order. ( 27 ) EVEN assuming for the sake of argument that the mistake by the counsel could have afforded a sufficient justification to the revisionist to have prosecuted the proceedings in revisional court bona fide he was not under the necessity to obtain copy of the order of revisional court. Even if he had procured copy of that order on 5. 11. Even if he had procured copy of that order on 5. 11. 1984, he could have filed that appeal on any subsequent date. He waited on and filed the appeal in the court below on 29. 11. 1984 much beyond 30 days. This inaction and negligence of the revisionist was held by the court below as inexcusable. As I am not satisfied on this point of limitation so I need not express myself on merits about the controversy relating to ownership of the Bus which is for a competent court to determine. ( 28 ) IN the result this revision is dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. Stay order dated 1. 3. 1985 is vacated herewith. Revision dismissed.