JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the order dated 21.5.1990 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, whereby he allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry and dispose of the case in accordance with law. On 2.4.87 the non-applicant/complainant Khilendra Kumar lodged a report before the Officer Incharge P.S. Tirodi against the applicants for the offences under sections 294, 147, 323, 323/109, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, but the police did not register any case. Then the non-applicant filed a regular complaint before the Judicial Magistrate who after examine the complainant on S.A. held an inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and called for report from the Officer Incharge P.S. Tirodi lodged by the non-applicant. The Officer Incharge submitted his report that no report whatsoever was lodged by the non-applicant against the applicants. In the light of the report of the Officer Incharge P.S. Tirodi, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri R.K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the applicants, has contended that the revision was filed by the non-applicant before the lower revisional Court after a delay of 16 days and had also filed condonation petition under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the revision. The ground taken for condonation of the delay in filing the revision was that the certified copy of the order of the Magistrate was not handed over to the father of the non-applicant by the clerk Abdul Samad. The non-applicant was directed by the lower revisional Court to file an affidavit of Abdul Samad, in support of the statement made in the condonation petition but no affidavit was filed despite the several opportunities given to the non-applicant and on suddenly one day Lower Revisional Court allowed the condonation petition and condoned the delay in filing the revision and also set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate and remanded the case back to the Judicial Magistrate for fresh inquiry. It is obvious from the record that sufficient opportunities were given to the non-applicant to file an affidavit in support of the stand taken for the condonation of delay in filing the revision but no affidavit was filed by the non-applicant of the Clerk Abdul Samad, therefore, no case was made out for condonation of delay in filing the revision before the Lower Revisional Court. The Lower Revisional Court erred in condoning the delay in filing the revision. It is well settled that delay can be condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, when sufficient cause shown by the applicant. In the instant case, the non-applicant failed to comply with the order of the learned Lower Revisional Court in filing the affidavit of the Clerk, Abdul Samad. The impugned order is, therefore, not in accordance with law. Accordingly it is set aside and in the result petition allowed.