JUDGMENT 1. -This restoration application was barred by limitation and hence an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. The question is whether the petitioner has been able to explain the delay and hence entitled for condonation and consequent order of restoration? 2. Revision petition No. 65/98 was filed against the order of learned Civil Judge (JD) Merta dated 7.10.1997 which was admitted on 17.1.1998 and it was ordered that the notice be issued, returnable within four weeks. The petitioner filed PF and notices but not the extra set, hence notice was not issued as reported by office on 27.1.1998. The case was listed in court on 6.2.1998 but nobody was present on behalf of petitioner. However, one week's time was allowed to do the needful. On 6.3.1998 Mr. R.R. Chacha, counsel for the petitioner, was present and in his presence three days time was granted to do the needful failing which it was ordered that the revision shall stand dismissed without reference to the court. On 17.3.1998 it was reported that PF and notices and extra set were filed but not in time as directed on 6.3.1998. On 1.4.1998 nobody was present and it was ordered by the Dy. Registrar (Judl) that in view of the court's order dated 6.3.1998 revision petition stood dismissed. 3. As stated, the revision petition was dismissed as Shri R.R. Chacha, counsel for the petitioner, did not file the extra set within a period of three days. It is stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit that the petitioner contacted his lawyer about the progress of the case in the third week of July, 1998, who informed him that he would inquire from the office and the petitioner was informed on 17.7.1998 that the petition was dismissed for non- submission of extra set. The copy of the order was delivered to him on 18.7.1998 from which it was not clear as to how dismissal took place. Then the petitioner applied for copy of the order which was not complied with and obtained its copy on 28.7.1998. It has been urged that it was dismissed because of the mistake of his lawyer and, therefore, he engaged another lawyer and then filed this restoration application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Then the petitioner applied for copy of the order which was not complied with and obtained its copy on 28.7.1998. It has been urged that it was dismissed because of the mistake of his lawyer and, therefore, he engaged another lawyer and then filed this restoration application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay occurred because his lawyer did not inform him neither he could contact him before third week of July, 1998 and that he was ignorant of the dismissal order, the delay should be condoned for the period from 1.4.1998 to 11.8.1998. 6. The reply filed by the respondent has been perused by me in which it is stated that the petitioner has not given explanation prior to third week of July, 1998. It has also been stated that the Affidavit of the counsel Shri Chacha has not been filed in support of the contention of the petitioner nor any satisfactory explanation has been given with regard to the period starting from 2.4.1998 to third week of July, 1998. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in such case the delay should not be condoned. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by both the counsel. 8. It is a fact that there was non-compliance of the order dated 6.3.1998 by the petitioner. Three days time was granted to do the needful i.e. submit the extra set which instead submitted after delay of eight days. The extra set should have been filed by 9.3.1998. Instead it was filed on 17.3.1998. It was the fault of his advocate. In a number of authorities of Supreme Court as well as of this Court it has been held that a party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent i.e. his lawyer. Reference can be made to AIR 1981 Supreme Court page 1400, Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another , relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no explanation of delay after 2.4.1998 till third week of July, 1998 as no affidavit of the counsel has been submitted by the petitioner. 9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no explanation of delay after 2.4.1998 till third week of July, 1998 as no affidavit of the counsel has been submitted by the petitioner. In order to controvert this argument, counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1988 Rajasthan page 164, Surajbhan v. M/s. Sadul Textiles , in which it was observed that when affidavit of the lawyer was not filed, there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the plaintiff, it should be believed. In the circumstances of this case no affidavit of the lawyer has been filed but there is affidavit of the petitioner that he met his counsel in the third week of July, 1998 and inquired about the progress of the case. Had lawyer informed him about the dismissal of the petition, the petitioner should have done the needful earlier. But it is clear that the lawyers of the petitioner who were two in number did not bother to inform the petitioner. They were Shri R.R. Chacha and Shri B.V. Thanvi. It is for the petitioner to take any action against them if he likes. But so far as inaction of the lawyer is concerned, it is proved from the record. I am of the view that in this case the petitioner should not suffer for his lawyer's inaction. The petitioner as soon as he came to know about dismissal of his petition in the third week of July, 1998, started action speedily and ultimately filed this restoration application. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case and the law being that there is no presumption that the delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides when a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay, I am of the view that in this case delay should be condoned. It is clarified that in every case the mistake of counsel by itself will not be sufficient ground to condone the delay but the question always remains whether the mistake proved out was bona fide or an attempt to save the petitioner in an underhand way. I find that there was no mala fide on the part of the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The defect stands removed. I find that there was no mala fide on the part of the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The defect stands removed. The restoration application is also allowed. Office is directed to list revision petition No. 65/98 in the Court for order.Appeal allowed. *******