Honble JAIN, J. – The defendant petitioner has filed this revision against the order dated 5.11.1993 of Shri L.D. Sharma, R.H.J.S., District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Misc. Petition No. 19/1993 dismissing the same application filed u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act. (2). It may be stated that initially the petitioner filed an appeal against the above order but when the maintainability of the appeal was challenged this Court vide order dated 11.12.1995 allowed the objection and held that only a revision petition could be filed against the impugned order. On the request of the petitioner he was allowed to convert the appeal into revision. (3). The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be noticed. Sunder Lal non-petitioner plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant Gopi Lal and respondent No. 2 Phool Puri for eviction and arrears of rent before the learned Munsif, Rajsamand. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif by his judgment dated 27.3.1993. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree the defendant namely Phool Puri and Gopi Lal preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Rajsamand. Since the presentation of appeal was beyond the period of limitation, in compliance of the provisions of O. 4, R. 3-A CPC, the appellant also filed an application purporting to be u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge by the impugned order dismissed the application, as according to him, the appellant failed to satisfy the Court that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. It may be stated that Gopi Lal in the application filed u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act has stated that he was undisposed before 23.4.1993 and continued to be so upto 26.4.1993. It was further stated that he was taken ill and remained at his house from 4.5.1993 to 25.5.1993. In support of the above application he also filed an affidavit. The plaintiff contested the above application by denying all the allegations made in the application. The plaintiff also filed his affidavit. The learned District Judge considered the application of the appellant and pointed out that the appeal was filed by two appellants namely Phool Puri and Gopi Lal but the application for condonation of delay was only made by appellant Gopi Lal. The plaintiff also filed his affidavit. The learned District Judge considered the application of the appellant and pointed out that the appeal was filed by two appellants namely Phool Puri and Gopi Lal but the application for condonation of delay was only made by appellant Gopi Lal. The learned District Judge in para 3 of the order stated that the judgment and decree were passed on 27.3.1993. The appellant filed an application for obtaining copies of the judgment and decree on 27.4.1993. The copies were ready for delivery on 1.5.1993 but the appellant obtained the same on 5.5.1993. Regarding the illness of Gopi Lal learned District Judge observed that as per averments made by the appe- llant it could be assumed that he was taken ill on 23/24.4.1993. The appellant had enough time to obtain copies of the judgment and decree or atleast he could have instructed his advocate for obtaining the copies notwithstanding his illness. He, therefore, found the appellant Gopi Lal negligent. He also observed that the appellant Gopi Lal only explained his so called inability to file the appeal but not a word was added why the appeal was delayed by the another appellant namely Phool Puri. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner. Learned counsel has referred to the documentary evidence produced by him in support of the application filed by him u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act before the learned District Judge. In the letter dated 22.4.1993 issued by Dr. Devendra S. Saxena, Bombay Hospital, Bombay addressed to Dr. Arun Bodia, Prof. & Head of Deptt. of Medicine, Udaipur it was stated that Mr. Gopi Lal was admitted to the Bombay Hospital for coronary by pass surgery and the same was performed on 7.4.1993. The other hospital ticket of Bombay Hospital dated 23.3.1993 shows that Dr. Satyavan Sharma advised chest X-ray of Shri Gopi Lal. It shows that Gopi Lal was admitted in Bombay Hospital on 23.3.1993. Other documents like medical bills etc also proved the fact that the appellant Gopi Lal had undergone open heart surgery and remained there upto 25.4.1993 and returned to Nathdwara on and about 26.4.1993. After coming to Nathdwara the appellant came to know about the dismissal of the suit. He, therefore, instructed his counsel Shri G.L. Sanchihar to obtain the certified copies of the judgment and decree. After coming to Nathdwara the appellant came to know about the dismissal of the suit. He, therefore, instructed his counsel Shri G.L. Sanchihar to obtain the certified copies of the judgment and decree. The application for the purpose was filed on 27.4.1993 and after obtaining the certified copies, the appeal was immediately filed before the learned trial Court alongwith an application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned counsel the appellant, therefore, submitted documentary evidence to prove his illness and the reasons for not filing the appeal within time. As soon as he returned to Nathdwara he took immediate and necessary steps to obtain the certified copies of the judgment and decree and filed the appeal and the same was filed without any further delay. The learned District Judge did not deal with documentary evidence filed by the appellant and without discussing the same passed an order dismissing his application. He also submitted that Phool Puri was a proforma defendant and if she did not file any application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, the prosecution of the appeal filed by Gopi Lal will not be adversely affected. The learned District Judge, therefore, committed jurisdictional error in not conside- ring the facts of the case and deciding the case according to law. (5). Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has contended that in revisional jurisdiction this Court cannot consider the merits of the case. Finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court that the petitioner appellant did not establish sufficient ground to condone delay u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be set aside in revision. The learned District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the case right or wrong or in accordance with law or not but interference in revision can only be made when it is found that he has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. He has placed reliance on Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Jeet Prasad (1), Rajkrishna Films (P) Ltd. vs. C. Varughese (2) and Bansi Alias Bansidhar Agarwal vs. Laxmi Narayan (3). (6). On merits he submitted that the decree was passed on 27.3.1993. The appellant petitioner, even if his averment is accepted, was admitted in the Bombay Hospital on 23.3.1993. He has placed reliance on Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Jeet Prasad (1), Rajkrishna Films (P) Ltd. vs. C. Varughese (2) and Bansi Alias Bansidhar Agarwal vs. Laxmi Narayan (3). (6). On merits he submitted that the decree was passed on 27.3.1993. The appellant petitioner, even if his averment is accepted, was admitted in the Bombay Hospital on 23.3.1993. In other words before he left for bombay, the case had been decided and he could have instructed his advocate to take steps for filing the appeal against the above judgment and decree. Even if he was admitted in Bombay Hospital, Bombay he could have instructed his advocate by contacting him even from Bombay to take steps for filing the appeal. Further more, the copy was scheduled to be delivered to the counsel of the petitioner on 5.5.1993 but it was obtained by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 26.5.1993. There was no justi- fication why the learned counsel did not obtain the copy when according to the endorsement made in the certified copy by the copying department of the Distt. and Sessions Judge the copy was ready on 5.5.1993. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Distt. Judge has not committed any error in the exercise of his jurisdic- tion in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for condoning delay. (7). I have considered the rival contentions. On merits the short facts which have been proved by the petitioner are that he was admitted in the Bombay Hospital on 23.3.1993 and was discharged on 26.4.1993. He came to Nathdwara and instructed his advocate to file an application for obtaining the certified copies of the judgment and decree and the same was done on 27.4.1993. A perusal of the endorsement made by the copying department on the back of the certified copy shows that the copies were to be delivered to the petitioner on 5.5.1993. It further shows that the copy was ready for delivery on 1.5.1993. Since the date given to the petitioner for obtaining the copy was 5.5.1993, the petitioner was expected to approach the copying department and obtain the copies on 5.5.1993. The petitioner appellant has not given any explanation why no steps were taken upto 26.5.1993 for obtaining the certified copies which was ready on 5.5.1993 the date fixed by the copying department for issuing the copies to the petitioner. The petitioner appellant has not given any explanation why no steps were taken upto 26.5.1993 for obtaining the certified copies which was ready on 5.5.1993 the date fixed by the copying department for issuing the copies to the petitioner. It is also to be taken note of that although the petitioner was admitted in the Bombay Hospital he could have availed the latest telecommunication facilities for contacting his advocate and instructed him for filing the appeal. It cannot be said that he was prevented from doing so on account of the illness. In fact, according to him he was operated upon on 7.4.1993 and it can be assumed that after a week or so he was in a position to issue necessary instructions for filing the appeal. He did not do so. Hence, in my opinion the learned District Judge has not committed any error which could be said to be an exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (8). In Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Jeet Prasad (supra) the Apex Court even went to the extent of laying down the principles which the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction must keep in view. It is laid down that the High Court shouldnot interfere even if the order impugned is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (9). A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Raj Krishna Films case laid down that where the lower appellate Court found that petitioner did not establish sufficient ground to condone delay u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act the same cannot be set aside in revision. (10). In Bansi alias Bansidhar Agarwals case (supra) this Court while dealing with the powers u/S. 115 CPC in a matter arising out of the rejection of an application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act held that where appellate Court declined to condone delay and recorded reasons for not believing the reasons of the petitioner for want of sufficient and necessary details and particulars the delay was not condoned. No irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the lower appellate Court was committed. (11). Hence, for the above reasons I may disposed to hold that the learned District Judge has not committed any error in the exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner appellant. No irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the lower appellate Court was committed. (11). Hence, for the above reasons I may disposed to hold that the learned District Judge has not committed any error in the exercise of jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioner appellant. From the facts it is clear that the petitioner failed to offer sufficient and reasonable reason for not filing the appeal within time. (12). It may be stated that the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has also agitated the point that the petition filed by the petitioner will not be maintainable inasmuch as the other appellant did not move any application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, this Court in the exercise of powers u/s. 115 CPC cannot set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed against the other appellant. However, this question does not survive after holding that the petition of the petitioner is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. For the above reasons there is no force in the petition and it is hereby dismissed as such.