ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties on the limitation matter. 2. It appears that there has been abnormal delay in filing the instant miscellaneous appeal. However, it appears that earlier under legal advice an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was filed against the ex-parte order in question and it was kept pending for a pretty long time. The order was passed on 26.8.1992 against which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was filed and finally this application was disposed of and dismissed on 29.3.1996. The court while dismissing this application held that the application itself was not maintainable. A revision was also filed by the appellant against this order and when at the time of admission it was found that it was not maintainable the same was withdrawn and accordingly this appeal is being pursued. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that because of incorrect and improper legal advice, the appellant filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. in good faith and until and unless, the application was dismissed the party could not know that he had to seek any other remedy. So this delay during which period the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was pending should be excluded on the ground that the mistake was bona-fide and under wrong legal advice. In this view of the matter, the limitation should be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application and contended that at the very outset when the reply was filed on behalf of the respondent to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. this point was raised that the application was not maintainable and still the appellant did not take a chance to correct the mistake and therefore this delay cannot be treated as bona-fide delay. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act has no application in this case. 5. However, even if it is true that the point of maintainability was taken at an early stage by the respondent in the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., the party could not have taken any other step until and unless an order was passed either dismissing or allowing the application. After the application was dismissed, though on the ground of non-maintainability, the appellant took step in filing this appeal. After the application was dismissed, though on the ground of non-maintainability, the appellant took step in filing this appeal. So it is a clear case of delay on account of bona-fide legal advice. In the circumstances, the limitation is fit to be ignored and the petition for condonation of delay is fit to be allowed. 6. The limitation petition at Flag-'L' is allowed and it is accordingly, disposed of.