JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 is directed against the order dated 15.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur whereby the learned Addl. District Judge dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff-petitioner being barred by time. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment on the grounds of defaults and reasonable and bona fide necessity; as also for arrears of rent and for enhancement of rent (fixation of fair and standard rent) on 2.1.1979. The case of the plaintiff-non-petitioner is that the defendant-non-petitioner took the suit shop on rent on 1.3.1964 by executing a rent note on a monthly rent of Rs. 92.50P. Later on, the non-petitioner increased the rent to Rs. 115/- per month. The petitioner further pleaded that on 1.1.1962, the monthly rent of the disputed shop was Rs. 70/- and, therefore, the rent may kindly be increased to Rs. 175/- per month. 3. While deciding Issue No. 7, the trial Court did not give any reasons. However, it held that as monthly rent of Rs. 115/- was agreed between the parties, no interference is required. Thus, the trial Court refused to increase the rent but it passed the decree for ejectment against the defendant-non-petitioner. 4. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 14.8.1996 passed by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which was transferred for disposal to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No. I , Jodhpur. In that appeal, the petitioner filed a caveat. The order-sheet of the learned first appellate Court reveals that on 26.2.1996, counsel for the caveator Shri G.R. Singhvi was absent, though no notice or summons was sent to the party or to its counsel. The next date fixed was 7.10.1996. On that date also, since Shri G.R. Singhvi was not well and as such his Assistant appeared. On that day, it was ordered that the case may be listed on 11.10.1996. On 11.10.1996, Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi was not present and it was recorded by the Court that copy of grounds of appeal be given to him when he comes and the next date fixed was 14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996, counsel for the Caveator Shri G.R. Singhvi was present. On 11.10.1996, Shri Gopal Raj Singhvi was not present and it was recorded by the Court that copy of grounds of appeal be given to him when he comes and the next date fixed was 14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996, counsel for the Caveator Shri G.R. Singhvi was present. The copy of Grounds of Appeal was given to him from the Court-file and the following endorsement was made on the order-sheet by Shri G.R. Singhvi, Counsel for the Caveator. "Recd. notice today by receiving the copy." On that very day, the cross-objections regarding fixation of fair [standard] rent were filed and copy thereof was given to the counsel for the appellant. The case was then kept on 7.12.1996, 10.12.1996, 2.1.1997, 10.1.1997, 28.1.1997 and 15.2.1997. On 15.2.1997, the appellant filed an application that the cross-objections filed by the petitioner are barred by time. The learned trial Court after considering the above facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the cross-objections filed by the petitioner were barred by time. The learned trial Court held that it was the duty of the Assistant of Shri G.R. Singhvi counsel for the petitioner to have obtained the copy of the memo of appeal but he did not do so. Hence the period of limitation shall be reckoned from the date the Assistant of Shri G.R. Singhvi put up his appearance. In this view of the matter, the learned first appellate Court vide its order dated 15.2.1997 dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff-petitioner as barred by time. Hence, this revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. G.R. Singhvi the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Thanvi the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. From the above narration of facts, it is crystal clear that on various dates of hearing fixed in this case, the counsel for the petitioner Shri G.R. Singhvi was not present before the learned first appellate Court on account of his illness. It can also be not gainsaid that his Assistant was present and copy of the memo of appeal was not handed over to him when he appeared on behalf of Shri G.R. Singhvi before the learned first appellate Court. It can also be not gainsaid that his Assistant was present and copy of the memo of appeal was not handed over to him when he appeared on behalf of Shri G.R. Singhvi before the learned first appellate Court. As a matter of the fact, from the perusal of the order-sheet dated 26.9.1996, it would be clear that the Court recorded the presence of the Assistant of Shri G.R. Singhvi and ordered that copy be given to Shri G.R. Singhvi when he appears the next date. The same order was reiterated on 11.10.1996. Ultimately on 14.11.1996. Shri G.R. Singhvi the counsel for the petitioner appeared and the copy of memo of appeal was given to him. Thus,-it is clear that the learned first appellate Court did not order for the delivery of the copy of memo of appeal to the Assistant of Shri C.R. Singhvi, Advocate. Had the Court ordered for the delivery of the copy of memo of appeal. to the Assistant of Shri G.R. Singhvi, he would not have refused to accept the same and ever, if he had refused to take the same, the period of limitation would be reckoned from the date the copy of memo of appeal was supplied to Shri G.R. Singhvi in this view as the matter, it was erroneous on the part of the learned first appellate Court to hold that the period of limitation in the instant case would be reckoned from the date when Assistant of Shri G.R. Singhvi put up his appearance and did not obtain the copy of the memo of appeal. Thus, the cross-objections submitted by Mr. G.R. Singhvi after obtaining copy of the memo of appeal are perfectly within the period of limitation and the learned first appellate Court has committed a material irregularity and illegality in dismissing the cross-objections filed by the defendant-petitioner holding them to be barred by time. 7. For the above reasons, I accept this revision petition, set aside the order dated 15.2.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jodhpur and hold that the cross-objections filed by Shri G.R. Singhvi, counsel for the petitioner were with in the, period of limitation. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the cross-objections also the appeal expeditiously.There will be no order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******