ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The only reason given for the excuse for the delay is the alleged negligence on the part of the learned Counsel. It is certainly not fair or not proper to accuse an Advocate for negligence. It is the basic duty of the client to go to the Advocate and ascertain the result of the case and also to verify whether the copy has been applied or not. Applying for copy by affixing a paltry stamp will normally be nor omitted to be done by an Advocate. In fact to say the truth, it is done by the Advocate's clerk to apply for a copy, had the client been vigilant in approaching either of them. It is an unfortunate case that the present Advocate raises his finger against his own colleague and put him in the accused bars without informing him in writing or orally that he has committed an offence constituting negligence. 2. I do not feel it proper to uphold such a cause as a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to warrant condonation of delay. In my opinion, such practice of accusing colleagues must be avoided in the interest of the profession and no Advocate can partner with the client to accuse his own colleagues of such negligence. 3. The petition is therefore, dismissed.